Re: (313) The more things change
I'm not too sure as I don't know too much about the subject matter but was Baroque a movement that defined itself over a (very) short period of time and was something which artists could easily attatch themselves too (as in the case of Electroklash) , or was it a term applied at a later date by historians? Jason On 3 Nov 2005, at 23:26, Cyclone Wehner wrote: I think we need to define what is a trend, what is a novelty? Baroque was a 'trend' once... For culture to evolve, you have cycles, and trends, then if it endures it maybe becomes a classic, as techno, or maybe a bad memory (like most 70s architecture!) and that too can change with the values of each generation... It's always been this way. Some people are moved by novelty far longer than others and can stand to hear new and interesting noises without caring if there was an ounce of emotion in it (moroder step bass anyone?). I have been guilty of this when listening to a new (insert anything sonic here). But at a point (unless you're that one track) you will change your tastes. And the one constant that I find most people wanting from their music regardless of genre is feeling. Whether it's country or techno, people want to relate their experience to something that comes from another angle. It's the same thing that Armando (I think) was saying back in the day about the acid house explosion in England. Something like, it's cool, but they heard the stuff we did and it's like they took the bleeps and carried on the tweaks, but they left the message. That was really what the music was about though, the message. But now all you hear are the blips and bleeps and there's no message to it, no feeling. Or something like that. (come to think of it, maybe that was larry too, can't remember). I think he's right on. But that's my opinion. I'll try to find that interview. Gonna be hard when I don't remember who I'm looking for. Think I smoked that memory just this morning too. Dangit. KKS
Re: (313) The more things change
I know what you mean in terms of, there's nothing worse to me that hearing a record (or what I do) described as emotional Techno- it's a byword word for bland and predictable for me- it's a term used in particular with electronic music- I've never heard of emotional Rock and Roll or emotional Folk music! Jason On 3 Nov 2005, at 23:54, Cyclone Wehner wrote: Maybe I wasn't very clear in that, of course they are, but when someone says I put emotion in my music or I wanted to convey emotion I get bored by cliches like that. It doesn't inspire you to hear the song, hey. Something more illuminating like I was feeling despair over this. But are all those things you mention not emotions- and the things that define our relationship to the world about us and in this instance, the music we are discussing? Jason On 3 Nov 2005, at 23:23, Cyclone Wehner wrote: Good point. I personally shrink when in interviews artists talk of emotion in relation to their work and don't define that too. What do you mean - sadness, despair, anger - or something that approximates emotion by being generally stirring? It's not v enlightening. But that's maybe just me... There seems to be some confusion regarding emotion
Re: (313) The more things change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque Jason Brunton wrote: I'm not too sure as I don't know too much about the subject matter but was Baroque a movement that defined itself over a (very) short period of time and was something which artists could easily attatch themselves too (as in the case of Electroklash) , or was it a term applied at a later date by historians? Jason On 3 Nov 2005, at 23:26, Cyclone Wehner wrote: I think we need to define what is a trend, what is a novelty? Baroque was a 'trend' once... For culture to evolve, you have cycles, and trends, then if it endures it maybe becomes a classic, as techno, or maybe a bad memory (like most 70s architecture!) and that too can change with the values of each generation... It's always been this way. Some people are moved by novelty far longer than others and can stand to hear new and interesting noises without caring if there was an ounce of emotion in it (moroder step bass anyone?). I have been guilty of this when listening to a new (insert anything sonic here). But at a point (unless you're that one track) you will change your tastes. And the one constant that I find most people wanting from their music regardless of genre is feeling. Whether it's country or techno, people want to relate their experience to something that comes from another angle. It's the same thing that Armando (I think) was saying back in the day about the acid house explosion in England. Something like, it's cool, but they heard the stuff we did and it's like they took the bleeps and carried on the tweaks, but they left the message. That was really what the music was about though, the message. But now all you hear are the blips and bleeps and there's no message to it, no feeling. Or something like that. (come to think of it, maybe that was larry too, can't remember). I think he's right on. But that's my opinion. I'll try to find that interview. Gonna be hard when I don't remember who I'm looking for. Think I smoked that memory just this morning too. Dangit. KKS
Re: (313) The more things change
On Nov 3, 2005, at 7:05 PM, Jason Brunton wrote: I know what you mean in terms of, there's nothing worse to me that hearing a record (or what I do) described as emotional Techno- it's a byword word for bland and predictable for me- it's a term used in particular with electronic music- I've never heard of emotional Rock and Roll or emotional Folk music! I'm not defending the term emotional when used to describe techno, but I think it's often used defensively. So many times the genre is described as soulless machine music. In an effort to counter that, or distinguish certain tracks, people use the term emotional. Kinda reminds me of the first time I heard of atmospheric Drum Bass to distinguish it from a music that some considered too cold. As far as Rock and Folk go, they're both rooted in protest, so emotion is a given (or should be). -- Ian
Re: (313) The more things change
Good question! It's been I guess historicised as such through 'critics'... but the motifs that would be defined/classified/distinguished as the Baroque movement of art/architecture/music were no doubt emulated by lesser craftsmen - and then adapted by innovators. (Like Electroclash.) With hyper media the time span between the creation and the 'labelling' is shorter. Of course some artists sometimes try and present their art and it gets called something else or contextualised in a way they can't control - Botticelli saw his work as La Prima Vera, the spring, referring partly to the painting that had neo-classical elements romanticised for a Christian viewer, but it's known to us as a work of the Renaissance and he a Renaissance painter. I'm no Fine Arts expert... I find that Derrick co have a very ambivalent outlook on the very term 'Techno' now in any context - probably as it's been wrestled from their control. That's part of the artistic struggle. I'm not too sure as I don't know too much about the subject matter but was Baroque a movement that defined itself over a (very) short period of time and was something which artists could easily attatch themselves too (as in the case of Electroklash) , or was it a term applied at a later date by historians?
Re: (313) The more things change
On Thu, November 3, 2005 11:54 pm, Cyclone Wehner wrote: Maybe I wasn't very clear in that, of course they are, but when someone says I put emotion in my music or I wanted to convey emotion I get bored by cliches like that. It doesn't inspire you to hear the song, hey. Something more illuminating like I was feeling despair over this. how is it chiche? thats insane. thats like saying im tired of talking, its so cliche. i want something newer! talking about music in the abstract is certainly not the most useful thing to do. discussing how it was made and the specific point of different sounds or arrangement ideas might be slightly better, but it still falls way short of really understanding how a piece of music sounds like an emotion. its not really a describable thing! tom
Re: (313) The more things change
On Fri, November 4, 2005 12:05 am, Jason Brunton wrote: I know what you mean in terms of, there's nothing worse to me that hearing a record (or what I do) described as emotional Techno- it's a byword word for bland and predictable for me thats interesting. for me, when i describe a record as emotional it means it successfully conveys emotion, which puts it far and above most other records. for example, aril briha's album is some of the most emotional music ive ever heard. and omar-s' just ask the lonely is right up there as well. those are special records, hardly what i would call bland and predictable. it's a term used in particular with electronic music- I've never heard of emotional Rock and Roll or emotional Folk music! they have a catalogue of terrible music, but its not the same as dance music's terrible music. bad dance music is devoid of pretty much anything useful, whereas rock or folk music is just bad. its easy to put emotion in a voice, its the most expressive instrument in the world. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote: On Thu, November 3, 2005 7:40 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Musically we are living in a period where every form of noise has been liberated - not to express something but rather to be explored for its own sake. I don't need music to carry some supposed meaning or feeling. There is a place for music with feeling, but there is also a place for abstract music that explores structured sonic possibilities for their own sake. Techno was ALWAYS about the surface anyway, it never was substantive compared to, say, Mozart. Techno is a special effect, a slowly mutating surface of noise vibrating over extremely repetitive rhythmic patters. And that is just fine with me. dave, youre my man but this is nonsense. making noise is just that: making noise. its not music. i own noise records. im not against noise. but its not the same game as making music. music DOES come with meaning and feeling. thats the whole point. without it, you could just listen to random sounds around you and feel as satisfied as if you just listened to a record. and since thats not the case, theyre not the same. tom noise is a relative term and depends a lot on what you presume music to be. To someone from the 10th century, I'm sure Schumann and Beethovan would sound very much like sound exploration for its own sake and ultimately noisey. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was denounced as noise and caused a riot at its first performance. The same was also once said of Satie's music. Yet how many people today would consider their music to be noise or lacking in meaning and feeling? If this shift in what is considered noise is true for them, then why is techno any different? Its an altogether different musical form and aesthetic from the traditional legacy European court and folk musics. Why should musical standards from a certain corner of the world several centuries ago be used as a measuring stick for a modern musical form that focuses on rhythmic interplay and aural nuance more often than it does on traditional harmonic/melodic development?
Re: (313) The more things change
So you find it stimulating reading time and time again I put emotion in my music. Don't you wanna know, well what do you mean about that? And sooo many DJs talk of their music in terms of 'journeys'. I wanna take people on a journey. That's self-evident to me... It's reductive and in 10 years I've heard so many people say it and it says and means nothing. If you want to lure people into your craft, you need to lure them in - and illuminate. Sorry but that's my hack side speaking! It's a cliche as I have heard/read/transcribed it a zillion times. I've learnt that some musicians are better - and more comfortable - letting their music talk which I think is fair enough. I have to say I've virtually never heard that in Detroit circles as the artists are so invidualist that they will share insights. On Thu, November 3, 2005 11:54 pm, Cyclone Wehner wrote: Maybe I wasn't very clear in that, of course they are, but when someone says I put emotion in my music or I wanted to convey emotion I get bored by cliches like that. It doesn't inspire you to hear the song, hey. Something more illuminating like I was feeling despair over this. how is it chiche? thats insane. thats like saying im tired of talking, its so cliche. i want something newer! talking about music in the abstract is certainly not the most useful thing to do. discussing how it was made and the specific point of different sounds or arrangement ideas might be slightly better, but it still falls way short of really understanding how a piece of music sounds like an emotion. its not really a describable thing! tom
Re: (313) The more things change
On Fri, November 4, 2005 3:48 am, darnistle wrote: Its an altogether different musical form and aesthetic from the traditional legacy European court and folk musics. Why should musical standards from a certain corner of the world several centuries ago be used as a measuring stick for a modern musical form that focuses on rhythmic interplay and aural nuance more often than it does on traditional harmonic/melodic development? i dont consider tribal drumming to be noise yet it adheres to none of the principles that make european music what it is. good try though. what it IS about is feeling, and someone making noises in their studio and saying boy, that sounds cool, let me stick a kick drum under that and release it is not evoking a feeling. theyre being cynical and wasting my time and theirs. but of course theyre making money selling it to hip white kids. awesome for them i guess. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
On Fri, November 4, 2005 4:02 am, Cyclone Wehner wrote: So you find it stimulating reading time and time again I put emotion in my music. Don't you wanna know, well what do you mean about that? And sooo many DJs talk of their music in terms of 'journeys'. I wanna take people on a journey. That's self-evident to me... but does it make it any less true? i mean, getting emotion into the grooves of those records must be much harder than people seem to give it credit for since so few people really seem to be doing it. and taking people on a journey is most definitely a foreign concept to 99.9% of the deejays ive ever seen spin records. these things may be self evident to you, but it doesnt mean people are achieving them! in fact, so few actually are that aiming for that goal isnt really all that trite or unoriginal. its just trying to provide a timeless experience. It's reductive and in 10 years I've heard so many people say it and it says and means nothing. If you want to lure people into your craft, you need to lure them in - and illuminate. Sorry but that's my hack side speaking! It's a cliche as I have heard/read/transcribed it a zillion times. maybe youre not asking the right questions of people? i mean, as a music fan and a generally knowledgeable kind of guy, when i read any interviews with musicians i love i cringe at the trite questions usually posed to them. to be honest, just liking a couple of someone's records doesnt necessarily mean that youre qualified to interview them. there are people who could easily ask many more indepth and interesting questions of these artists, but in order to do so they have an extremely intimate relationship with their music. and really, how many people care enough to read about these in depth things? not many. which is why those kinds of interviews arent done. which is why i dont mind people giving the same old answers to the trite questions theyre asked. i dont think anyone is trying to get all long winded and philosophical about their music with no prodding (jeff mills aside!). and even people like mills get ridiculed by certain sects of people in the techno scene for trying to explain the things that motivate them about their music. its so asinine. I've learnt that some musicians are better - and more comfortable - letting their music talk which I think is fair enough. I have to say I've virtually never heard that in Detroit circles as the artists are so invidualist that they will share insights. all im going to say about this is that on many, many occasions ive read interviews with someone who said something really interesting about their music, or ive read reviews which said something about the music that really piqued my interest, and then ive gone on to actually listen to it and wonder what everyone's panties were getting in a bunch about. my record reviews come from putting the needle on the record. thats really all that matters to me, and thats probably all that matters to most artists who arent just trying to make money. so who cares what their insights are? they make wonderful music and thats all that counts. let some snobby music critic make up nonsense if they want. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
On Thu, November 3, 2005 11:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, exactly - people could, and people DO listen to random sounds as music. I live in the city and sometimes, the soundscape IS as satisfying as a record. Music is everywhere. Human produced music is only one sub-genre. youve got to be kidding me, right? i mean this is not the first time ive ever heard this argument, but the idea that any sound is music is ridiculous. there is unquestionably a difference between sound and music. Music is rhythm (time) + timbre (quality of vibration), perceived by an observer who categorizes the sounds as music. That's it! again, nonsense. youre completely discounting the idea of music existing at all, which im sure everyone on this list would disagree with since they certainly seem interested in this music thing. if what you say is true, than any and no sounds can be considered music. and thats just ridiculous. its like saying everything everywhere is art. thats just obviously not true. i dont know what else to say to argue your point, if you cant differentiate between these things i have no idea what to tell you. Anything else might apply to a style or genre, but is not broad enough to cover all musical activities in the world - you have to make the claim that some forms of musical activity are not actually music. Examples might include field recordings, tibetan ritual music, Merzbow or compositions by John Cage. Clearly, to a musicologist, all of these activities could be classified and studied as music, even if it doesn't fit with your personal definition. i told you, i own noise records (including plenty by merzbow and others). i would argue that merzbow's music is still about an expression of an emotion. cage clearly liked to straddle that line of what is and isnt music. this is useful as a philosophical exercise, but not much use to anyone listening. a field recording is simply that, a recording of sounds. the act of recording something doesnt make it music. it makes it a recording. Also, in regards to emotion being important, consider that in some cultures (buddhist, for instance) emotions are viewed quite differently. The purpose of art and music in these cultures would be to still the mind rather than to provoke emotion. Indeed, I personally find that the music I enjoy best has just such an effect. good luck with that. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
On Thu, November 3, 2005 4:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Grime - wonderful, dirty, gut level music (and I slagged it when I first heard about it) im still much more entertained by the ideas behind grime music than the actual product. most techno I think is not very innovative at all good. music that defines itself by innovation is restricted by whatever technologies exist and develop to let them explore new ideas. why relate music so strongly to something so unmusical? I know that when I hear a track that's got some new crazy efx it's pretty cool at first but then if that's all there is - ??? - that excitement doesn't last and then you get drum and bass where tunes have a shelf life of exactly as long as it takes for other people to figure out how to make whatever sound is popular that week. who cares about nonsense like that? where's the good music? I've always thought that techno was all about the human condition within the context of technology/technological advancement/sci-fi I mean what makes books like I Robot, Do Androids Dream.., The Third Wave, etc. interesting is that they all relate to how humans (or robots who discover their humanity) react emotionally to the technology. so much techno nowadays completely ignores that and instead is interested in finding a new plug-in the best thing that Larry said is (and this is almost a direct quote) - there is no plug-in for that feeling amen. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
a field recording is simply that, a recording of sounds.. I experimented with a few field recordings a while back but artistically I just felt a little, you know, fenced in Jason
Re: (313) The more things change
a field recording is simply that, a recording of sounds.. I experimented with a few field recordings a while back but artistically I just felt a little, you know, fenced in BOOOM BOOM. *snigger* _ - End of message text This e-mail is sent by the above named in their individual, non-business capacity and is not on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.
Re: (313) The more things change
I understand what you are saying here but I think that most people would not be that impressed if you took a recording of a city's soundscape and played it to them in their living room- therefore the elements and combinations of sounds that make up part of the City's atmosphere are inseparable from their surroundings and aren't music when separated from them. In other words, the music of a bustling city centre street isn't just music, but a combination of sounds (mostly random but some repetitive and regular and all playing off each other) AND the environment in which they exist. cheers Jason On 3 Nov 2005, at 23:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, exactly - people could, and people DO listen to random sounds as music. I live in the city and sometimes, the soundscape IS as satisfying as a record. Music is everywhere. Human produced music is only one sub-genre. Music is rhythm (time) + timbre (quality of vibration), perceived by an observer who categorizes the sounds as music. That's it!
Re: (313) The more things change
But what *is* the difference between sound and music? Maybe the difference is just your interpretation of it. Somebody mentioned Autechre a while ago, I'll use that as one example. Anybody ever hear the Gantz_Graf track they did? I think that's music, but I'd never in a million year be able to convince my parents that it was. (have a listen to it, it's pretty much all timestretched drills and delay effects) Now take some whale noises recorded by a mic in the sea, does that sound musical to us? I bet to the whales it just sounds like whale talk. Could this be with same with bird song? I remember reading an interview with My Bloody Valentine's front man Kevin Sheilds many years ago (before he become a complete recluse) where he said that he kept hearing music around London, in the subways, on the streets, trains passing him in certain ways sounded musical. This was before I'd ever heard of musique concrete or John Cage or any eletronic music and I was thinking What the hell is he on about!? Music without playing a guitar or a keyboard? That's nuts! I'd be of the opinion that a persons interpretation of the sound is what makes it music, to them. I think the rules of what is music (if there were any) keep expanding as we become more open minded to different sounds and start listening to them in different ways. Like my Grandmother always said about The Beatles That's not music, it's just noise! -skkatter On 04/11/05, Thomas D. Cox, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: youve got to be kidding me, right? i mean this is not the first time ive ever heard this argument, but the idea that any sound is music is ridiculous. there is unquestionably a difference between sound and music. -- http://www.skkatter.net
Re: (313) The more things change
I'd be of the opinion that a persons interpretation of the sound is what makes it music, to them. Yes, but you're doing something to the sound in your head. You are making it into music by attaching a story to it, or a meaning, or [I don't really have the words]. In a way, when you're sitting on a train and it's making funky rhythms, and you're hearing it as music, really you're being more of a musician than a listener, because you're making it into music in your head. I think part of this is seeing potential for a story in the sounds you're hearing. So, in short, what you heard was not music till you processed it so you hear it as in a way, sounds made intentionally, as if there was a purpose to them or a message in them. (Btw, I hate trying to put this stuff in words because it's guaranteed that I'll use the wrong ones just because I can't think of decent ones, and 99% of the time my meaning gets lost. Some people are good at talking about music though.) Jamil
Re: (313) The more things change
I can see in an interview process (as I've done them myself) where emotional, funky, and take you on a journey are cliché. However, within the time constraints and conditions of an interview I can see how and why a DJ or producer wouldn't go into specifics. So many artists also get their pat answers for questions (because they do so many) it's hard for them to break out and really get into it. Only a few are capable of getting into detail. MEK Cyclone Wehner [EMAIL PROTECTED] il.com.au To 313 Detroit 313@hyperreal.org 11/03/05 10:02 PM cc Subject Re: (313) The more things change So you find it stimulating reading time and time again I put emotion in my music. Don't you wanna know, well what do you mean about that? And sooo many DJs talk of their music in terms of 'journeys'. I wanna take people on a journey. That's self-evident to me... It's reductive and in 10 years I've heard so many people say it and it says and means nothing. If you want to lure people into your craft, you need to lure them in - and illuminate. Sorry but that's my hack side speaking! It's a cliche as I have heard/read/transcribed it a zillion times. I've learnt that some musicians are better - and more comfortable - letting their music talk which I think is fair enough. I have to say I've virtually never heard that in Detroit circles as the artists are so invidualist that they will share insights. On Thu, November 3, 2005 11:54 pm, Cyclone Wehner wrote: Maybe I wasn't very clear in that, of course they are, but when someone says I put emotion in my music or I wanted to convey emotion I get bored by cliches like that. It doesn't inspire you to hear the song, hey. Something more illuminating like I was feeling despair over this. how is it chiche? thats insane. thats like saying im tired of talking, its so cliche. i want something newer! talking about music in the abstract is certainly not the most useful thing to do. discussing how it was made and the specific point of different sounds or arrangement ideas might be slightly better, but it still falls way short of really understanding how a piece of music sounds like an emotion. its not really a describable thing! tom
Re: (313) The more things change
Damn Tom - you're spot on today. MEK Thomas D. Cox, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To h.com313@hyperreal.org cc 11/04/05 01:11 AM Subject Re: (313) The more things change On Fri, November 4, 2005 4:02 am, Cyclone Wehner wrote: So you find it stimulating reading time and time again I put emotion in my music. Don't you wanna know, well what do you mean about that? And sooo many DJs talk of their music in terms of 'journeys'. I wanna take people on a journey. That's self-evident to me... but does it make it any less true? i mean, getting emotion into the grooves of those records must be much harder than people seem to give it credit for since so few people really seem to be doing it. and taking people on a journey is most definitely a foreign concept to 99.9% of the deejays ive ever seen spin records. these things may be self evident to you, but it doesnt mean people are achieving them! in fact, so few actually are that aiming for that goal isnt really all that trite or unoriginal. its just trying to provide a timeless experience. It's reductive and in 10 years I've heard so many people say it and it says and means nothing. If you want to lure people into your craft, you need to lure them in - and illuminate. Sorry but that's my hack side speaking! It's a cliche as I have heard/read/transcribed it a zillion times. maybe youre not asking the right questions of people? i mean, as a music fan and a generally knowledgeable kind of guy, when i read any interviews with musicians i love i cringe at the trite questions usually posed to them. to be honest, just liking a couple of someone's records doesnt necessarily mean that youre qualified to interview them. there are people who could easily ask many more indepth and interesting questions of these artists, but in order to do so they have an extremely intimate relationship with their music. and really, how many people care enough to read about these in depth things? not many. which is why those kinds of interviews arent done. which is why i dont mind people giving the same old answers to the trite questions theyre asked. i dont think anyone is trying to get all long winded and philosophical about their music with no prodding (jeff mills aside!). and even people like mills get ridiculed by certain sects of people in the techno scene for trying to explain the things that motivate them about their music. its so asinine. I've learnt that some musicians are better - and more comfortable - letting their music talk which I think is fair enough. I have to say I've virtually never heard that in Detroit circles as the artists are so invidualist that they will share insights. all im going to say about this is that on many, many occasions ive read interviews with someone who said something really interesting about their music, or ive read reviews which said something about the music that really piqued my interest, and then ive gone on to actually listen to it and wonder what everyone's panties were getting in a bunch about. my record reviews come from putting the needle on the record. thats really all that matters to me, and thats probably all that matters to most artists who arent just trying to make money. so who cares what their insights are? they make wonderful music and thats all that counts. let some snobby music critic make up nonsense if they want. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
made sense to me you arrange the sound and create music. The sound may feel musical to you but in and of itself it is not music. It's just a sound. It has a tone or aspect that lends itself to becoming a part of a musical piece. It's not until that sound is arranged and purposefully placed within the context of other sounds that it becomes music. Purposefully placed could be either deciding to let randomness stick it somewhere in the continuum or deciding exactly where that sound is going to go and interact with the other elements. It's just the act of doing - I'm going to do something with this sound so that it is no longer just a sound but a part of a constructed statement. wow - this is getting academic not really the point of my original post at all. MEK Jamil Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] e.com To 313@hyperreal.org 11/04/05 09:40 AM cc Subject Please respond to Re: (313) The more things change [EMAIL PROTECTED] ware.com I'd be of the opinion that a persons interpretation of the sound is what makes it music, to them. Yes, but you're doing something to the sound in your head. You are making it into music by attaching a story to it, or a meaning, or [I don't really have the words]. In a way, when you're sitting on a train and it's making funky rhythms, and you're hearing it as music, really you're being more of a musician than a listener, because you're making it into music in your head. I think part of this is seeing potential for a story in the sounds you're hearing. So, in short, what you heard was not music till you processed it so you hear it as in a way, sounds made intentionally, as if there was a purpose to them or a message in them. (Btw, I hate trying to put this stuff in words because it's guaranteed that I'll use the wrong ones just because I can't think of decent ones, and 99% of the time my meaning gets lost. Some people are good at talking about music though.) Jamil
Re: (313) The more things change
Music is what happens when people try to order sound to express something that isn't otherwise expressible. Location recordings could be compelling to listen to for any number of reasons, but music would seem to require at a minimum some sort of human intervention beyond pressing 'record.' Music is something people say to each other. Ambient sound is just ambient -- it lacks intention.
Re: (313) The more things change
On 11/4/05, skkatter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember reading an interview with My Bloody Valentine's front man Kevin Sheilds many years ago (before he become a complete recluse) where he said that he kept hearing music around London, in the subways, on the streets, trains passing him in certain ways sounded musical. A lot of weed can do that to a person.
Re: (313) The more things change
On Fri, November 4, 2005 5:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: made sense to me you arrange the sound and create music. The sound may feel musical to you but in and of itself it is not music. It's just a sound. It has a tone or aspect that lends itself to becoming a part of a musical piece. It's not until that sound is arranged and purposefully placed within the context of other sounds that it becomes music. Purposefully placed could be either deciding to let randomness stick it somewhere in the continuum or deciding exactly where that sound is going to go and interact with the other elements. It's just the act of doing - I'm going to do something with this sound so that it is no longer just a sound but a part of a constructed statement. wow - this is getting academic not really the point of my original post at all. now thats the base point of my argument, pretty well spelled out. and the idea is that the artist is trying to accomplish something here, trying to evoke some feeling by either letting things remain random or not remain random. its that purpose that is the emotion that is unquestionably intrinsic in music as opposed to just sound. sound is cool, undoubtedly. but its not music! tom
Re: (313) The more things change
Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote: what it IS about is feeling, and someone making noises in their studio and saying boy, that sounds cool, let me stick a kick drum under that and release it is not evoking a feeling. theyre being cynical and wasting my time and theirs. but of course theyre making money selling it to hip white kids. awesome for them i guess. tom You jump from point A to point Q. Someone making noises in their studio and saying boy, that sounds cool, let me stick a kick drum under that and release it could produce anything from crap to utter brilliance. With talent and quality control the results could be quite amazing and full of all sorts of feeling. I've got plenty of noise records. Some are quite facile, uncreative and utterly disposable. Others are strange, amazing and quite beautiful even if the sounds are unusual, abrasive or cacophanous at times. The fact that it isn't melody-driven (synonymous with noise for a lot of people) says nothing about its quality or ability to convey a range of emotions.
Re: (313) The more things change
Unfortunately your entire argument is based on personal and subjective prejudice, not on any kind of logic. It is reasonable to say that if someone creates a musical composition they are trying to accomplish something. However, it is up to the artist's personal vision what that something is - it might have something to do with emotion, and it might not. If it doesn't have anything to do with emotion, it's still music - you don't have to LIKE it, but that doesn't change its status as music. If a musicologist can study it as music, and a reasonable number of people can agree that it is music, then it is music. This is a much more objective approach than judging all musical activity based on your personal prejudices. The idea that the goal of music is to create some kind of intense feelings in the listener is musical romanticism, which comes primarily from 19th century Europe. It is not the ONLY approach to music. In terms of all the music in the world, it is not necessarily the predominant approach. I personally thought that romanticism died in like, 1915. Unfortunately I guess that isn't the case... However, if nothing else, this discussion does show that there is probably a very pronounced split in the techno world, between the romantics and those who are more anti-romantic in outlook. The first would glorify feeling as the highest criterion of music, while the latter group would look to other aesthetic qualities as that which makes music interesting. I'm in the second group and I'm more interested in hearing interesting combinations of timbre and rhythm. I still can feel emotion, I just don't believe it is in the music, or what makes the music interesting. I look at it as a natural by product when I experience something sonically interesting. Anyway, my anti-romanticism is part of why Strings of Life sounds cheesy to me, and I usually dislike vocals in techno. ~David Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote: now thats the base point of my argument, pretty well spelled out. and the idea is that the artist is trying to accomplish something here, trying to evoke some feeling by either letting things remain random or not remain random. its that purpose that is the emotion that is unquestionably intrinsic in music as opposed to just sound. sound is cool, undoubtedly. but its not music! tom
RE: (313) The more things change
Since it seems that a comment by larry started this. I feel he should have the definitive word as well. ...The creative person [especially musicians] and the listener are viewing the scenario from different perspectives and are seeking different kinds of fulfillment... Larry heard interview 2001. Sounds about right to me. Any producer looking for consistent specific emotional response (the musical holy grail) is gonna be disappointed. And any fan that thinks they know what the producer was feeling is just wrong. While larry's on the table, even he admitted that the seminal washing machine was the result of hooking two machines up weird and having one trigger the sample from the other on random (not intentionally set to random mind you). Not intentional, but stirring nonetheless. This argument has gotten waaay too academic because we all know what feeling he's talking about. And if you don't know, no one's gonna be able to explain it to you. LH:Can you feel it? Me: come on larry, I feel lots of things. be specific. LH: you know, that feeling? Me: well now that just sounds like BS, if you can't tell me what I should feel then just don't bring it up. LH: ... Yeah it really sounds that stupid. Two sides of a coin then... KKS
Re: (313) The more things change
On Fri, November 4, 2005 6:16 pm, darnistle wrote: You jump from point A to point Q. Someone making noises in their studio and saying boy, that sounds cool, let me stick a kick drum under that and release it could produce anything from crap to utter brilliance. With talent and quality control the results could be quite amazing and full of all sorts of feeling. I've got plenty of noise records. Some are quite facile, uncreative and utterly disposable. Others are strange, amazing and quite beautiful even if the sounds are unusual, abrasive or cacophanous at times. The fact that it isn't melody-driven (synonymous with noise for a lot of people) says nothing about its quality or ability to convey a range of emotions. but what does say something about it is the purpose behind making the music! there's a way to make straight up noise into a vehicle for expression. and there's a way to make a cool sound into a track that conveys nothing except the fact that the producer knows how to make a cool sound. what differentiates these? the purpose of the artist. this has absolutely nothing to do with melody, the fact that you keep trying to bring it back to that despite my numerous examples of non-melodic and even non-rhythmic music that i listen to says to me that youre missing the entire point. sounds does not equal music. sound plus purpose equals music. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
sounds like the difference between dancing and chin-stroking the first group reacts to the music physically while the other reacts to it intellectually I still contend that if you get too much of the later you begin to lose portions of the audience and bringing this right back around the to original topic of the Northern Soul fans compared/contrasted to Techno fans this is dance music we're talking about - techno is a branch off of house once you've detached yourself from house and it's traditions rooted in dance you're talking about a whole other kind of music techno will lose the audience when those who create it rely too much on the technology to push it forward I don't lose my head on the dancefloor and then say wow, I was really moved by the XYZ patch and the LMNOP plug-in I say I love the way he played it what I'm saying is it's not the technology - it's the feeling within the player of the technology that I react to and not enough producers feel it or even know what it is they're supposed to feel (imo) I can see that this is true just by looking at the glut of techno records produced as opposed to the number of records we talk about with passion The idea that the goal of music is to create some kind of intense feelings in the listener is musical romanticism, which comes primarily from 19th century Europe. Really? You're ignoring a whole world of music then which it's purpose was to make one dance/feel very intense feelings. Ritual music, festival music, celebratory music, funeral marches, etc. The entire African music tradition I would gather. Carry that over to the African-American music tradition - the blues, jazz, rock'n'roll, disco, funk, house, techno. You're supposed to be losing your head on the dancefloor man, crying, laughing, clapping your hands, stomping your feet, feeling that music go through your body. Why do you think people put massive amounts of bass into a club? You're supposed to FEEL THE MUSIC IN YOU! 19th Century Europe didn't corner the market on music that creates intense feelings in people. It's been with us ever since someone went into a trance state through the use of music. I think you need to crack open a National Geographic magazine once in a while MEK David Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] lnoize.comTo 313@hyperreal.org 11/04/05 12:29 PM cc Subject Re: (313) The more things change Unfortunately your entire argument is based on personal and subjective prejudice, not on any kind of logic. It is reasonable to say that if someone creates a musical composition they are trying to accomplish something. However, it is up to the artist's personal vision what that something is - it might have something to do with emotion, and it might not. If it doesn't have anything to do with emotion, it's still music - you don't have to LIKE it, but that doesn't change its status as music. If a musicologist can study it as music, and a reasonable number of people can agree that it is music, then it is music. This is a much more objective approach than judging all musical activity based on your personal prejudices. The idea that the goal of music is to create some kind of intense feelings in the listener is musical romanticism, which comes primarily from 19th century Europe. It is not the ONLY approach to music. In terms of all the music in the world, it is not necessarily the predominant approach. I personally thought that romanticism died in like, 1915. Unfortunately I guess that isn't the case... However, if nothing else, this discussion does show that there is probably a very pronounced split in the techno world, between the romantics and those who are more anti-romantic in outlook. The first would glorify feeling as the highest criterion of music, while the latter group would look to other aesthetic qualities as that which makes music interesting. I'm in the second group and I'm more interested in hearing interesting combinations of timbre and rhythm. I still can feel
Re: (313) The more things change
Unfortunately your entire argument is based on personal and subjective prejudice, not on any kind of logic. Sorry David but that doesn't stack up because for it to be subjective it has to be based on feelings or intuitions, not upon observation or reasoning. So next time someone say it's Subjective, 9 times out of 10 they will be wrong...and in this case I think you are :)
Re: (313) The more things change
sounds like the difference between dancing and chin-stroking the first group reacts to the music physically while the other reacts to it intellectually I still contend that if you get too much of the later you begin to lose portions of the audience and bringing this right back around the to original topic of the Northern Soul fans compared/contrasted to Techno fans this is dance music we're talking about - techno is a branch off of house once you've detached yourself from house and it's traditions rooted in dance you're talking about a whole other kind of music techno will lose the audience when those who create it rely too much on the technology to push it forward I don't lose my head on the dancefloor and then say wow, I was really moved by the XYZ patch and the LMNOP plug-in I say I love the way he played it what I'm saying is it's not the technology - it's the feeling within the player of the technology that I react to and not enough producers feel it or even know what it is they're supposed to feel (imo) I can see that this is true just by looking at the glut of techno records produced as opposed to the number of records we talk about with passion The idea that the goal of music is to create some kind of intense feelings in the listener is musical romanticism, which comes primarily from 19th century Europe. Really? You're ignoring a whole world of music then which it's purpose was to make one dance/feel very intense feelings. Ritual music, festival music, celebratory music, funeral marches, etc. The entire African music tradition I would gather. Carry that over to the African-American music tradition - the blues, jazz, rock'n'roll, disco, funk, house, techno. You're supposed to be losing your head on the dancefloor man, crying, laughing, clapping your hands, stomping your feet, feeling that music go through your body. Why do you think people put massive amounts of bass into a club? You're supposed to FEEL THE MUSIC IN YOU! 19th Century Europe didn't corner the market on music that creates intense feelings in people. It's been with us ever since someone went into a trance state through the use of music. I think you need to crack open a National Geographic magazine once in a while MEK David Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] lnoize.comTo 313@hyperreal.org 11/04/05 12:29 PM cc Subject Re: (313) The more things change Unfortunately your entire argument is based on personal and subjective prejudice, not on any kind of logic. It is reasonable to say that if someone creates a musical composition they are trying to accomplish something. However, it is up to the artist's personal vision what that something is - it might have something to do with emotion, and it might not. If it doesn't have anything to do with emotion, it's still music - you don't have to LIKE it, but that doesn't change its status as music. If a musicologist can study it as music, and a reasonable number of people can agree that it is music, then it is music. This is a much more objective approach than judging all musical activity based on your personal prejudices. The idea that the goal of music is to create some kind of intense feelings in the listener is musical romanticism, which comes primarily from 19th century Europe. It is not the ONLY approach to music. In terms of all the music in the world, it is not necessarily the predominant approach. I personally thought that romanticism died in like, 1915. Unfortunately I guess that isn't the case... However, if nothing else, this discussion does show that there is probably a very pronounced split in the techno world, between the romantics and those who are more anti-romantic in outlook. The first would glorify feeling as the highest criterion of music, while the latter group would look to other aesthetic qualities as that which makes music interesting. I'm in the second group and I'm more interested in hearing interesting combinations of timbre and rhythm. I still can feel
Re: (313) The more things change
On Fri, November 4, 2005 6:29 pm, David Powers wrote: Unfortunately your entire argument is based on personal and subjective prejudice, not on any kind of logic. huh? youre the one who is saying all music is about the subjective interpretation! im saying that objectively there is something inside music which differentiates it from sound. It is reasonable to say that if someone creates a musical composition they are trying to accomplish something. However, it is up to the artist's personal vision what that something is - it might have something to do with emotion, and it might not. how do you separate a human from their emotions? even the cold calculating people who can do that are achieving it by directly contradicting their expected emotion. theres no way to remove these things from any artistic venture. there is a way to make non-artistic sound without feeling, however. it happens all the time. like i said, its a cynical approach, for sure. but it happens, and people make money from it. plunk down the expected sounds in the expected pattern, press it up and put it out. or make an unexpected sound and put it out there for the people into innovation. theres a million different ways to do it, and its done in every one of those ways. If it doesn't have anything to do with emotion, it's still music - you don't have to LIKE it, but that doesn't change its status as music. If a musicologist can study it as music, and a reasonable number of people can agree that it is music, then it is music. This is a much more objective approach than judging all musical activity based on your personal prejudices. so we're going to go by concensus to define things? thats obviously a dangerous road to go down. im being as objective as possible. im saying if you put those things into music which make it music, then it is music. if not, its simply sound. The idea that the goal of music is to create some kind of intense feelings in the listener is musical romanticism, which comes primarily from 19th century Europe. It is not the ONLY approach to music. In terms of all the music in the world, it is not necessarily the predominant approach. I personally thought that romanticism died in like, 1915. Unfortunately I guess that isn't the case... so explain tribal drumming to me through your eurocentric view of emotion in music. explain the blues. explain rock. explain jazz music. are they just there to make funny sounds? thats a pretty cynical explanation. However, if nothing else, this discussion does show that there is probably a very pronounced split in the techno world, between the romantics and those who are more anti-romantic in outlook. The first would glorify feeling as the highest criterion of music, while the latter group would look to other aesthetic qualities as that which makes music interesting. I'm in the second group and I'm more interested in hearing interesting combinations of timbre and rhythm. I still can feel emotion, I just don't believe it is in the music, or what makes the music interesting. I look at it as a natural by product when I experience something sonically interesting. so do you read? do you just read random lists of words in order to feel emotion from them? do you look at random pictures instead of watching a film or play? honestly, i still dont understand why you would ever purchase a record or CD or anything music related if you can be just as satisfied by listening to the ambient sound around you. it just doesnt make sense. if you have artists that you like, youre going against everything that youre saying. you should hold yourself up as the only composer in the feeling you get from sounds, and for free nonetheless! so in reality i dont think any of this is true, which is why i feel like youre arguing against some imaginairy idea that im not even talking about. you hear the word emotion and you start thinking about big string arrangements or something, and while that is one way to express emotion its certainly not the only way. there's something that these artists are doing to intrigue you outside of randomly stringing sounds together. Anyway, my anti-romanticism is part of why Strings of Life sounds cheesy to me, and I usually dislike vocals in techno. hey, you can just say i dont like strings of life or vocals and that argument would make much more sense than what youre trying to get at. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote: On Fri, November 4, 2005 6:16 pm, darnistle wrote: You jump from point A to point Q. Someone making noises in their studio and saying boy, that sounds cool, let me stick a kick drum under that and release it could produce anything from crap to utter brilliance. With talent and quality control the results could be quite amazing and full of all sorts of feeling. I've got plenty of noise records. Some are quite facile, uncreative and utterly disposable. Others are strange, amazing and quite beautiful even if the sounds are unusual, abrasive or cacophanous at times. The fact that it isn't melody-driven (synonymous with noise for a lot of people) says nothing about its quality or ability to convey a range of emotions. but what does say something about it is the purpose behind making the music! there's a way to make straight up noise into a vehicle for expression. and there's a way to make a cool sound into a track that conveys nothing except the fact that the producer knows how to make a cool sound. what differentiates these? the purpose of the artist. this has absolutely nothing to do with melody, the fact that you keep trying to bring it back to that despite my numerous examples of non-melodic and even non-rhythmic music that i listen to says to me that youre missing the entire point. sounds does not equal music. sound plus purpose equals music. tom Did you not say making noise is just that: making noise. its not music. i own noise records. im not against noise. but its not the same game as making music.??? Perhaps I'm pulling this out of thin air?
Re: (313) The more things change
Right, but some people like chin stroking music. I'm not saying it's better or worse, that's up to you. I'm just saying that it IS music, and some people like it, and some people actually do FEEL something for music that others find to be perversely intellectual. I like quite a bit of dance music, I like chin stroking stuff, I have both sides, I just don't try to set up some kind of hierarchy of what is best. There's a place for everything. As far as African American music goes, I would suggest balancing out your view by considering what Anthony Braxton calls the sweating brow syndrome; the idea that if a black musician is making intellectual music, or isn't up there sweating on stage, then (s)he isn't really black. (Just like if they make techno, as opposed to RnB or Hip Hop, they aren't really making black music.) When I see Surgeon play, he looks very distant and unemotional, but as far as I'm concerned, he's about the best techno performer out there, because what comes out of the speakers SOUNDS GREAT, and certainly provokes emotion in the audience. People went nuts the last two times he played in Chicago! Again, performer emotion, and audience emotion = two different things. As far as the question of whether intellectual music loses an audience - I don't think this is really a very important issue. Most people who write experimental types of music aren't aiming for the biggest possible audience. They are writing to express something they need to express, for whatever reason, whether it is an idea, feeling, or just an urge to play around and see what happens. To me, lots of supposedly chin stroking music is PLAYFUL and FUN, but people just take it (and themselves) too seriously. I still argue that emotional responses often, or even usually, say more about the listener than the music itself. Emotion is a characteristic of HUMAN BEINGS, not of sonic waveforms. Only a human listener can experience an emotion. Sound waves do not somehow contain emotions... ~David -- Original Message - Subject: Re: (313) The more things change Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 13:14:01 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: David Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] sounds like the difference between dancing and chin-stroking the first group reacts to the music physically while the other reacts to it intellectually I still contend that if you get too much of the later you begin to lose portions of the audience -- ~David Powers
RE: (313) The more things change
Emotion is a characteristic of HUMAN BEINGS, not of sonic waveforms. Only a human listener can experience an emotion. Sound waves do not somehow contain emotions... I'd like to argue that on the basis of vibrational reality at length, but I haven't got the time. In short, all things are vibratory, all things are sound. Emotions are concentrated vibrational anomalies. As are sound waves. So no, emotions aren't exactly contained in sound waves, but sound waves do have the potential to BE emotions if it vibes right. And that's not subjective that's science. Waaay too academic for my taste tho. It's really not that hard to understand, unless you just don't want to. Nothing wrong with not liking things just cause. What sucks is trying to convince someone it's for some huge esoteric reasons that just turn out to be an opinion. At that point you just blowing sunshine dawg. KKS
Re: (313) The more things change
if that's how things will look in ten years time, then it's an improvement - they're getting a better turn out than a techno night around here. james Dan Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] o.uk To Jamie Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/03/05 08:37 AM cc Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313 313@hyperreal.org Subject Re: (313) The more things change ' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) ForwardSourceID:NT00023796
Re: (313) The more things change
I'm not out of touch! But I have arguments with young Detroit fans - friends of mine - who are so purist that I wonder how they really love music at all. Their blanket disavowal of all contemporary urban music is strange. I think I am much more on the pulse than them, arrogant or not as that sounds. I refuse to get to a point where we purely romanticise the music of the past as they - some - do. How is it that an old funk record can be privileged over something new and edgy? The status of a classic is worthy but shouldn't stop anyone hearing something exciting in the present. The legacy of Detroit feeds into new styles all the time. As I am getting older I don't become more conservative, I listen to more, and seek more, that is all. I think John Peel embodied that and that's why everyone loves him still so much. Not sure why I didn't see this originally. All of the below questions are questions I ask a lot. In the UK techno and house are pretty niche things nowadays, especially when talking about detroit. To a certain extent this is partially my perception of things. Like a lot of us I'm in my 30s now and probably out of touch with what the kids are listening to in clubs, if they are indeed going to clubs or whether they listen to dance music at all. I think maybe this list isn't the place to look for answers to this. From a personal point of view the stuff I've always liked is the slower type of techno you mention below, never really dug the more banging end of things. Anyone else or am I just an old f*rt? :) robin...
Re: (313) The more things change
As I am getting older I don't become more conservative, I listen to more, and seek more, that is all. Exactly.
Re: (313) The more things change
On Thu, November 3, 2005 12:16 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if that's how things will look in ten years time, then it's an improvement - they're getting a better turn out than a techno night around here. at least you guys have techno nights. i live not even 5 hours from detroit by car, and about 10 hours from chicago by car and dance music here is dead. dead dead dead. who cares what anyone else is listening to? not me. if im the only moron sitting here in my house rocking out to the records i love, that does the trick for me. i love playing music for other people, but thats not an important thing, really. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Cyclone Wehner wrote: I'm not out of touch! But I have arguments with young Detroit fans - friends of mine - who are so purist that I wonder how they really love music at all. Their blanket disavowal of all contemporary urban music is strange. I think I am much more on the pulse than them, arrogant or not as that sounds. I refuse to get to a point where we purely romanticise the music of the past as they - some - do. How is it that an old funk record can be privileged over something new and edgy? I think it's a matter of perspective. Once you've educated yourself on Detroit Techno (or any other genre for that matter), you can apply that learning to new musics and compare/contrast the two. And we learn from that. Newbies usually have not yet mastered any given genre, and may be overly enthusiastic about the one sound they have discovered. At my age, I've developed appreciation for swing, bop, dub, soul, funk, disco, hard trance, concertos, electro (1st and 2nd Gen), ska (1.0 - 3.0) blah blah blah. I filter everything though my experience and a few new things always sneak through. I was met with raised eyebrows from peers when i said that Christina Aguilera's Genie in a Bottle had a compelling Aphex Twin production sound. My fondness for Bowie/Bolan glam helped me latch on to Louis XIV for a hell of a lot of fun, without me expecting them to be anything but a passing fancy. Techno classics have their place, but if we don't keep one ear in the future, we're betraying the originators. -- Ian (P.S. God bless you Mama Parks.)
Re: (313) The more things change
I was gonna mention the Northern Soul parallels in my email. If I'm discussing this with my mates in the pub it's the similarity we look to too. Thing is though that scene was always backwards looking and, from what I know, resisted anything that wasn't from detroit. Techno isn't really like that. A better comparison may be the culture surrounding reggae sound systems. No-one blinks an eye at a 60 year old running things there. robin... On 2 Nov 2005, at 21:09, Jamie Stewart wrote: There's been a couple of scary threads lately, 'Who do you rate under 25?' As it turns out, there's hardly anyone of that age producing Detroit techno! And now this one 'Where is techno headed?' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) Don't forget the talc.
Re: (313) The more things change
Techno classics have their place, but if we don't keep one ear in the future, we're betraying the originators. indeed. most true. I think I hear a lot of techno in ALOT of music these days. to me this is the new techno. I think dego is very techno, I think that phil asher edit of just one love2love is DEFINATELY techno. guess it depends on what you think is techno, but to me it was electronic music that strives to give a different sound to others and has a bit of a wtf is that factor. but I don't think many people agree with me on that one, it's just me and my stupid theorys. i dont think techno's dead, i just think its called something else these days. _ - End of message text This e-mail is sent by the above named in their individual, non-business capacity and is not on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.
RE: (313) The more things change
i think techno lost it's ability to innovate or influence.. perhaps because we're all too critical..
Re: (313) The more things change
On 3 Nov 2005, at 07:50, robin wrote: I was gonna mention the Northern Soul parallels in my email. If I'm discussing this with my mates in the pub it's the similarity we look to too. Thing is though that scene was always backwards looking and, from what I know, resisted anything that wasn't from detroit. Techno isn't really like that. While some what you mention above is true (I don't agree that it was backwards looking as a movement - only the clubs where keeping it in check), I think the biggest problem they had was with the hardcore at the nights that demand faster tracks and keeping everything very narrow, if it didn't fit - it was out! Which, as you point out, Techno doesn't really do that. In fact I'd say there's more chance of techno people embracing it but as the next generation of kids grow up an discover music they certainly don't want to be into the same sh1t as their parents m
Re: (313) The more things change
i think techno lost it's ability to innovate or influence.. perhaps because we're all too critical.. You might be right. A test: What do people think of Grime? Electroclash? :) I think though the shock of hearing mad electronic noises has disappeared. I mean half the top ten consists of records that have mad electronics in them. A point Alex was making in fact. To innovate these days is a million times harder than when all people had to do was take the batteries out of a 303 to get a random pattern and set it to an 808 beat (that still works for me but it's not innovation anymore). Kinda like when stained glass used to make people get on their knees and think of God. The novelty has worn off. robin...
Re: (313) The more things change
Thing is though that scene was always backwards looking and, from what I know, resisted anything that wasn't from detroit. Techno isn't really like that. While some what you mention above is true (I don't agree that it was backwards looking as a movement - only the clubs where keeping it in check), I think the biggest problem they had was with the hardcore at the nights that demand faster tracks and keeping everything very narrow, if it didn't fit - it was out! Yeah true. My knowledge is a little patchy on these things :) Which, as you point out, Techno doesn't really do that. In fact I'd say there's more chance of techno people embracing it but as the next generation of kids grow up an discover music they certainly don't want to be into the same sh1t as their parents True, but that is what happens to most generations. They do listen to what their parents were listening to, just presented in a different way, done with a different attitude and done with a different drug of choice. The music might be similar but the culture is different. Anyway...I could natter on about this all day but it isn't good to over think these things and I better get some work done :) robin...
RE: (313) The more things change
What do people think of Grime? Electroclash? grime i think is ok, but i only see it as a spin off from jungle.. and jungle stole a lot of techno's thunder in the early ninties, the lines were drawn then that i think suffocated techno.. electroclash is rubbish (draws line) ;)
RE: (313) The more things change
grime i think is ok can anyone recommend me some good grime? seems hard to get the records in manchester. I've heard some 'dubstep' but it wasn't really for me, interested to find some good grime. maybe a comp or something might be a good place to start? thanks alex _ - End of message text This e-mail is sent by the above named in their individual, non-business capacity and is not on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.
RE: (313) The more things change
Alex, On this messageboard i found a free 'Grime' compilation as an MP3.. http://www.2sgforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57182 I hope the link works Martijn -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: donderdag 3 november 2005 11:06 Aan: 313@hyperreal.org Onderwerp: RE: (313) The more things change grime i think is ok can anyone recommend me some good grime? seems hard to get the records in manchester. I've heard some 'dubstep' but it wasn't really for me, interested to find some good grime. maybe a comp or something might be a good place to start? thanks alex _ - End of message text This e-mail is sent by the above named in their individual, non-business capacity and is not on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.
RE: (313) The more things change
And here's review of a grime-compilation... http://www.speakerspushtheair.com/articles/articles_more.php?id=342_0_3_ 0_M Martijn -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: donderdag 3 november 2005 11:06 Aan: 313@hyperreal.org Onderwerp: RE: (313) The more things change grime i think is ok can anyone recommend me some good grime? seems hard to get the records in manchester. I've heard some 'dubstep' but it wasn't really for me, interested to find some good grime. maybe a comp or something might be a good place to start? thanks alex _ - End of message text This e-mail is sent by the above named in their individual, non-business capacity and is not on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.
RE: (313) The more things change
thanks Martijin!! alex _ - End of message text This e-mail is sent by the above named in their individual, non-business capacity and is not on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.
Re: (313) The more things change
It's weird looking at those Northern Soul night pics. I just turned 47, so it looks to me like I'm around the same age demographic as those folks (I suspect a few of them are older, given that Northern Soul's heyday was when I was pretty young). I kept comparing myself to them - So *this* is what you end up like after too many pints over too many years ;) Past 45, it's a real challenge keeping your waistline anywhere close to trim. (I also felt like a lot of those people's faces looked lived in - I suspect drink's got a bit to do with that, too. Other than that, however, I saw myself as not looking a whole lot different than most of that lot.) I had an odd experience the other night. I went to see Gang Of Four play in Hollywood; they were absolutely brilliant - as if I'd stepped out of a time machine and back into late 1981 or something. It was a real thrill to see such a well-oiled machine at work. Rock music hasn't given me that kind of a thrill in quite a long time. Meanwhile, I was also somewhat encouraged by all the graybeards in attendance - there were quite a few old faces I recognized (but I didn't know them back in the day, so I didn't talk to any of them), which was good to see. Aging Hipsters: We're Out Here, And We're Not Going Away. (We Just Don't Crawl Out Of The Woodwork That Often.) But after the gig I wandered across the street to a Rock club run by our very own Yussel (late of this parish). I was immediately surrounded by 21-25 year old jagged-edged hairdo Hollywood kids, and the only person I knew there was Josh. I felt like a fish out of water, and quickly beat a hasty retreat (Tejada was playing down the street as it happened, so that was a good reason to leave). There's a time when you know You Just Don't Belong Anymore, and that was such a time for me. Then I went to catch the last 15 minutes of Tejada's set (an impromptu quasi-jam with Kenneth Gibson a.k.a. Eight Frozen Modules ensued), and while in that environment there were also a fair number of 21-25 year olds, I also knew quite a few people there (hi Doris!) and immediately felt much more at ease - among My People, or something. I may be by far the oldest apple on the tree in the Techno realm out here, but the playing field seems much more level. The age range at Techno/House events runs the gamut, from the very young to ... erm, well, me. Hopefully I've got a few more years to go to Techno parties before I feel like, as I did at the Hollywood club, it's time to put myself out to pasture. - Greg P.S. Robin? Re: Electroclash - I like some of it just fine. Remember kids: Labels are for cans.
Re: (313) The more things change
But after the gig I wandered across the street to a Rock club run by our very own Yussel (late of this parish). hey, say hello from the 313 when you see him next greg! _ - End of message text This e-mail is sent by the above named in their individual, non-business capacity and is not on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.
Re: (313) The more things change
Hi Greg, The below post made me feel better about things. Yeah a few of our crowd (that contains list people like Francis, Alex etc etc) in Manchester are up to 50 too and still going strong. And the Electroclash comment was said deliberately because of peoples aversion to it even though it's probably close to music it's OK to likeanyway robin... Greg Earle wrote: It's weird looking at those Northern Soul night pics. I just turned 47, so it looks to me like I'm around the same age demographic as those folks (I suspect a few of them are older, given that Northern Soul's heyday was when I was pretty young). I kept comparing myself to them - So *this* is what you end up like after too many pints over too many years ;) Past 45, it's a real challenge keeping your waistline anywhere close to trim. (I also felt like a lot of those people's faces looked lived in - I suspect drink's got a bit to do with that, too. Other than that, however, I saw myself as not looking a whole lot different than most of that lot.) I had an odd experience the other night. I went to see Gang Of Four play in Hollywood; they were absolutely brilliant - as if I'd stepped out of a time machine and back into late 1981 or something. It was a real thrill to see such a well-oiled machine at work. Rock music hasn't given me that kind of a thrill in quite a long time. Meanwhile, I was also somewhat encouraged by all the graybeards in attendance - there were quite a few old faces I recognized (but I didn't know them back in the day, so I didn't talk to any of them), which was good to see. Aging Hipsters: We're Out Here, And We're Not Going Away. (We Just Don't Crawl Out Of The Woodwork That Often.) But after the gig I wandered across the street to a Rock club run by our very own Yussel (late of this parish). I was immediately surrounded by 21-25 year old jagged-edged hairdo Hollywood kids, and the only person I knew there was Josh. I felt like a fish out of water, and quickly beat a hasty retreat (Tejada was playing down the street as it happened, so that was a good reason to leave). There's a time when you know You Just Don't Belong Anymore, and that was such a time for me. Then I went to catch the last 15 minutes of Tejada's set (an impromptu quasi-jam with Kenneth Gibson a.k.a. Eight Frozen Modules ensued), and while in that environment there were also a fair number of 21-25 year olds, I also knew quite a few people there (hi Doris!) and immediately felt much more at ease - among My People, or something. I may be by far the oldest apple on the tree in the Techno realm out here, but the playing field seems much more level. The age range at Techno/House events runs the gamut, from the very young to ... erm, well, me. Hopefully I've got a few more years to go to Techno parties before I feel like, as I did at the Hollywood club, it's time to put myself out to pasture. - Greg P.S. Robin? Re: Electroclash - I like some of it just fine. Remember kids: Labels are for cans.
Re: (313) The more things change
The below post made me feel better about things. Yeah a few of our crowd (that contains list people like Francis, Alex etc etc) in Manchester are up to 50 too and still going strong. ...i must add the above are just the nippers :) robin...
RE: (313) The more things change
but I don't think many people agree with me on that one, it's just me and my stupid theorys. i dont think techno's dead, i just think its called something else these days. _ - End of message text I'm with you on that anyway Alex. Ken
Re: (313) The more things change
i think techno lost it's ability to innovate or influence.. perhaps because we're all too critical.. Hm .. I think the criticism is keeping techno alive. Every time someone plays me new dance music all I can hear is the influences or lack of .. from Techno. The more I listen to the sound and listen to the ethos develop the more I realize that Techno is the Jazz of dance music. This is obvious for so many reason, but I think the positive note is that because of this the music will survive, it will grow and change and evolve. I think criticism implies passion. I don't like listening to crap, and tend to voice my opinions, especially in clubs and to Dj! While in the moment I have gotten many dirty looks and jaded treatment .. ... time rolls around .. and a year later ..I am making the same comment to the same Dj in the same club . but pointing out to them how their sound has changed and or not .. because of XYZ .. .. slowly .. in my life .. friends and associates are staring to hear what I am listening too .. start to understand their own musical histories and begin to realize where the roots of sound really are. I have noticed in my dance world that while many people don't quite understand the music I play or talk about .. there is a developing level of respect for the approach I take to the music . to the sound .. This is not something about me .. but about Techno and the mindset you develop as you start to love the music. I mindset towards innovation, history, legacy and culture. In the simplest way you grow up from being just a dancer into a dancing music lover. Jazz is a sound unique, that has a culture of its own in the music world. Everyone knows what jazz is, but many people don't like it .. in many similar ways to that people don't like techno .. But Jazz has a legacy of artists and fans with a uncompromising approach to the music .. a deep set passion to the essence that makes the music. You experience this externally as attitude, or criticism, jaded behavior. This is what keeps the music honest though, keeps it fresh, keeps it alive. It keeps the music from becoming everything else .. Eventually people seek the music out, they come in search of the honesty of the passion, of true music lovers. People seek out a richer connection to the music to the dancing .. I am involved with many different sounds in the dance scene, and for me it is the discussion the critical appraisal, the defensive behavior that keeps it interesting keeps it real .. keeps it connected to the music. Frankly I'm not really interested in collecting the records, playing the records or even making them. I am interested in listening to the music, learning from the music, and expressing myself to the music. And I have always been willing to protect the integrity of this process by being critical of music that is not suitable for this practice. If the music is fraudulent, trite, chart filling crap I have no problems indicating to those present the thin veneer of its substance. However if the music is good, if its true, you'll just find me dancing !! Don't even get me started on innovation and influence .. haven't you figured out that when any other style of dance music gets lost .. they listen to Techno .. .. cut a loop and run with that for the next sixth months .. ahahaha .simon
Re: (313) The more things change
This reminds me a bit of when my wife and I last went to see Bowie - except that it was unnerving to see how old the crowd LOOKED. Seriously- one woman challenged my abilities to tell if she was getting into the show or having some medication issues. The most vibrant group looked like the WNIC (local bad morning-radio show) secretary pool after a few too many Long Island Teas - bellowing the Ziggy hits they recognized (ar at least the choruses). The feeling I had was do I belong HERE?? with the offputting realization that it *was* my peers age-wise who surrounded me. My wife must have sensed my distressed...she kept saying honey, you don't look like them. I have a few years on Greg, but still - most of these people looked like they were in their mid-60s. On the other hand, I do believe I relayed my experience on this list from the last Movement where I had several teenies interview me as if I were some sort of hip curiosity, asking is your son spinning here?...and do you folks like techno?. Can't win, I guess. Take it in stride. :-) jeff I had an odd experience the other night. I went to see Gang Of Four play in Hollywood; they were absolutely brilliant - as if I'd stepped out of a time machine and back into late 1981 or something. It was a real thrill to see such a well-oiled machine at work. Rock music hasn't given me that kind of a thrill in quite a long time. Meanwhile, I was also somewhat encouraged by all the graybeards in attendance - there were quite a few old faces I recognized (but I didn't know them back in the day, so I didn't talk to any of them), which was good to see
Re: (313) The more things change
Grime - wonderful, dirty, gut level music (and I slagged it when I first heard about it) Electroclash - a festival that I'm sure was fun but ultimately fleeting (destined to be short lived since the basis of the sound - 80s electro - had a beginning, middle, and end already) I have to agree with Greg about the labels - it's terribly fracturing Alex - have to agree with you there about Dego and Co. I'm drawn to their sounds now more than I ever have been most techno I think is not very innovative at all I had the pleasure of having dinner and a conversation with Larry Heard when he was in town I'm going to paraphrase what he said (from my bad memory) so don't take it verbatim - he's had a bit of problems with people taking stuff out of context and I don't want to add to that We were talking about the current state of music - how technology allows more people to make tracks Larry didn't seem pleased with this because he thought that it actually just allowed people to make, not so much music, but rather just different noises You know when you've got a really hot track - that feeling is there - doesn't matter what instruments you use - could be a guitar and a piano but there's so much techno/house out there that relies on a new sound instead of the feeling behind it but he called it a collection of noises - not music I think that if techno is going to survive and continue to innovate it and it's players have got to get back in touch with that feeling I know that when I hear a track that's got some new crazy efx it's pretty cool at first but then if that's all there is - ??? - that excitement doesn't last I've always thought that techno was all about the human condition within the context of technology/technological advancement/sci-fi I mean what makes books like I Robot, Do Androids Dream.., The Third Wave, etc. interesting is that they all relate to how humans (or robots who discover their humanity) react emotionally to the technology. so much techno nowadays completely ignores that and instead is interested in finding a new plug-in the best thing that Larry said is (and this is almost a direct quote) - there is no plug-in for that feeling MEK robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] org To Kelly, Stephen 11/03/05 03:46 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc 313 313 313@hyperreal.org Subject Re: (313) The more things change i think techno lost it's ability to innovate or influence.. perhaps because we're all too critical.. You might be right. A test: What do people think of Grime? Electroclash? :) I think though the shock of hearing mad electronic noises has disappeared. I mean half the top ten consists of records that have mad electronics in them. A point Alex was making in fact. To innovate these days is a million times harder than when all people had to do was take the batteries out of a 303 to get a random pattern and set it to an 808 beat (that still works for me but it's not innovation anymore). Kinda like when stained glass used to make people get on their knees and think of God. The novelty has worn off. robin...
Re: (313) The more things change
the best thing that Larry said is (and this is almost a direct quote) - there is no plug-in for that feeling and that my friends, just about sums it up nicely. : ) _ - End of message text This e-mail is sent by the above named in their individual, non-business capacity and is not on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.
Re: (313) The more things change
How much were the tickets for Bowie? I find that lots of younger people do want to go see certain artists - people who are legends and cornerstones of music history - but these artists price themselves right out of the younger generation's pocket book why go see Bowie for $60+ when you can catch a band for $5-15? anyone read Vice magazine? One of the past issues was dedicated to the topic of parents/generation gap/etc. There was a great rant about the baby boomer generation (in the US) MEK [EMAIL PROTECTED] omcast.net To 11/03/05 07:50 AM 313@hyperreal.org cc Subject Re: (313) The more things change This reminds me a bit of when my wife and I last went to see Bowie - except that it was unnerving to see how old the crowd LOOKED. Seriously- one woman challenged my abilities to tell if she was getting into the show or having some medication issues. The most vibrant group looked like the WNIC (local bad morning-radio show) secretary pool after a few too many Long Island Teas - bellowing the Ziggy hits they recognized (ar at least the choruses). The feeling I had was do I belong HERE?? with the offputting realization that it *was* my peers age-wise who surrounded me. My wife must have sensed my distressed...she kept saying honey, you don't look like them. I have a few years on Greg, but still - most of these people looked like they were in their mid-60s. On the other hand, I do believe I relayed my experience on this list from the last Movement where I had several teenies interview me as if I were some sort of hip curiosity, asking is your son spinning here?...and do you folks like techno?. Can't win, I guess. Take it in stride. :-) jeff I had an odd experience the other night. I went to see Gang Of Four play in Hollywood; they were absolutely brilliant - as if I'd stepped out of a time machine and back into late 1981 or something. It was a real thrill to see such a well-oiled machine at work. Rock music hasn't given me that kind of a thrill in quite a long time. Meanwhile, I was also somewhat encouraged by all the graybeards in attendance - there were quite a few old faces I recognized (but I didn't know them back in the day, so I didn't talk to any of them), which was good to see
Re: (313) The more things change
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How much were the tickets for Bowie? Can't recall, but they were expensive. 60+, I think. Too much. I find that lots of younger people do want to go see certain artists - people who are legends and cornerstones of music history - but these artists price themselves right out of the younger generation's pocket book I doubt it - often the parents are buying. Check the prices for the crap that's hot on the radio these days and it's usually higher than that. When McCartney swung through town, I knew one guy who took his whole family - at about $130 a pop. And those weren't scalped prices, either. why go see Bowie for $60+ when you can catch a band for $5-15? Because a large majority of concert-goers (i.e., the ones who will go see what's hot on MTV/Clear Channel affiliates, etc.) aren't interested in a good deal of the bands who charge $5-15 per ticket. And if Ticktemaster handles the seats, what started at $20 ends up being close to $30. Even the good indie shows are usually at least 20 (before surcharges, etc.)
Re: (313) The more things change
theREALmxyzptlk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/03/2005 11:24:04 AM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: find that lots of younger people do want to go see certain artists - people who are legends and cornerstones of music history - but these artists price themselves right out of the younger generation's pocket book I doubt it - often the parents are buying. Check the prices for the crap that's hot on the radio these days and it's usually higher than that. When McCartney swung through town, I knew one guy who took his whole family - at about $130 a pop. And those weren't scalped prices, either. sorry, should have clarified - college aged (and around there) who don't/can't rely on their parents to buy them tickets why go see Bowie for $60+ when you can catch a band for $5-15? Because a large majority of concert-goers (i.e., the ones who will go see what's hot on MTV/Clear Channel affiliates, etc.) aren't interested in a good deal of the bands who charge $5-15 per ticket. And if Ticktemaster handles the seats, what started at $20 ends up being close to $30. Even the good indie shows are usually at least 20 (before surcharges, etc.) Well, again, those aren't the people I'm talking about you're average MTV/Clear Channel viewer/listener, I would argue, isn't interested in David Bowie they couldn't care less about his influences on modern music it's the person who is interested in the indie band who is more inclined to be curious about Bowie and they can't afford $60+ tickets they can maybe afford a $30 ticket (with the surcharges - depending on where you live) but will probably settle for a more underground or local band instead that way they can still pay their bills, buy a beer at the show, etc. It's for that reason, I am speculating, that you don't see many people under 40 at a show like Bowie MEK
Re: (313) The more things change
I'm guessing he's not a big John Cage fan. Seriously, though I have great respect for Larry Heard as a producer, I have to disagree. A certain kind of feeling might define a GENRE, but it can never define all the possibilities available in the exploration of music as an art form. These fixed ideas about what is music and what is noise prevent innovation and evolution. And to fear evolution is not very techno. Musically we are living in a period where every form of noise has been liberated - not to express something but rather to be explored for its own sake. I don't need music to carry some supposed meaning or feeling. There is a place for music with feeling, but there is also a place for abstract music that explores structured sonic possibilities for their own sake. Techno was ALWAYS about the surface anyway, it never was substantive compared to, say, Mozart. Techno is a special effect, a slowly mutating surface of noise vibrating over extremely repetitive rhythmic patters. And that is just fine with me. np: Autechre - Untilted ~David but he called it a collection of noises - not music MEK
Re: (313) The more things change
Techno was ALWAYS about the surface anyway, it never was substantive compared to, say, Mozart. What? So Strings of Life is all about the surface? That's a pretty damn emotional track if you ask me. Gets crowds going every time I heard it drop last month (3 times!). there is also a place for abstract music that explores structured sonic possibilities for their own sake. but after a bit (take Autechre for example since you're listening to them) all you hear is math and eventually, if pushed too far in that direction, it goes up it's own arse there will always be an audience for the more academic electronic music - that's not the issue I am talking about genres of dance music - of which I wouldn't put a whole ton of abstract music (including most of Autechre's) - eventhough you could probably dance to some really abstract Cage music - the majority of people who are inclined to dance wouldn't choose that type of music and that's sort of what we're talking about - a dwindling audience for techno as dance music most dance music has to have some emotional content for people to really want to dance to it - like Soul/Northern Soul does what Larry was addressing was people trying to make dance music (house/techno/db) but are too wrapped up in creating a new sound and forgetting how to play that new sound MEK [EMAIL PROTECTED] noize.com To 11/03/05 01:40 PM 313@hyperreal.org cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please respond to Subject [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: (313) The more things change noize.com I'm guessing he's not a big John Cage fan. Seriously, though I have great respect for Larry Heard as a producer, I have to disagree. A certain kind of feeling might define a GENRE, but it can never define all the possibilities available in the exploration of music as an art form. These fixed ideas about what is music and what is noise prevent innovation and evolution. And to fear evolution is not very techno. Musically we are living in a period where every form of noise has been liberated - not to express something but rather to be explored for its own sake. I don't need music to carry some supposed meaning or feeling. There is a place for music with feeling, but there is also a place for abstract music that explores structured sonic possibilities for their own sake. Techno was ALWAYS about the surface anyway, it never was substantive compared to, say, Mozart. Techno is a special effect, a slowly mutating surface of noise vibrating over extremely repetitive rhythmic patters. And that is just fine with me. np: Autechre - Untilted ~David but he called it a collection of noises - not music MEK
RE: (313) The more things change
It's always been this way. Some people are moved by novelty far longer than others and can stand to hear new and interesting noises without caring if there was an ounce of emotion in it (moroder step bass anyone?). I have been guilty of this when listening to a new (insert anything sonic here). But at a point (unless you're that one track) you will change your tastes. And the one constant that I find most people wanting from their music regardless of genre is feeling. Whether it's country or techno, people want to relate their experience to something that comes from another angle. It's the same thing that Armando (I think) was saying back in the day about the acid house explosion in England. Something like, it's cool, but they heard the stuff we did and it's like they took the bleeps and carried on the tweaks, but they left the message. That was really what the music was about though, the message. But now all you hear are the blips and bleeps and there's no message to it, no feeling. Or something like that. (come to think of it, maybe that was larry too, can't remember). I think he's right on. But that's my opinion. I'll try to find that interview. Gonna be hard when I don't remember who I'm looking for. Think I smoked that memory just this morning too. Dangit. KKS
RE: (313) The more things change
There seems to be some confusion regarding emotion - are we talking about the listener's emotion, or the creator's emotion??? Both Larry Heard and Armando seem to think that the producer's of the music need to feel certain emotions to create good work. I don't buy it. Neither one have any idea what the creators of this music were feeling, they just take THEIR emotional response as LISTENERS and project it back onto the creators - ie. this piece doesn't move me, so the creator of it must have lacked emotion when he made it. I argue that what matters is the creator's skill. Listeners will tend to have an emotional response to a well constructed piece, but not necessarily a response that is unvarying or easy to describe. Autechre, for instance, makes me feel something but I'm not sure I could pin it into some simple emotional category. But it's not like I'm contemplating equations or something when I hear it, by any means. The music seems as emotional to my as anything else. I believe that much, even most, of the response to is rooted in the listener's mood, their environment, their cultural background, their own prejudices and their previous encounters with music. All these things are external to the music itself. Even for one individual, music might provoke different responses when sober as opposed to intoxicated, in different settings, etc. As for myself, I like interesting timbres, and I like interesting rhythms, and to me that is the definition of music: rhythm + timbre (pitch and harmony are, for me, subcategories of timbre). I'd hardly call this being moved by novelty, but I don't believe there is emotion in the music. Usually abstract music does produce emotional responses in me, but I don't project them back onto the music itself. The emotions belong to ME, not to the music. As a final example, I like Mozart now, whereas in the past I really had no taste for that type of music, though I did intellectually appreciate it. Now, I enjoy Mozart's music, and I feel something when I hear it - but the music never changed. It was my ability to listen that changed. ~David It's always been this way. Some people are moved by novelty far longer than others and can stand to hear new and interesting noises without caring if there was an ounce of emotion in it (moroder step bass anyone?). I have been guilty of this when listening to a new (insert anything sonic here). But at a point (unless you're that one track) you will change your tastes. And the one constant that I find most people wanting from their music regardless of genre is feeling. Whether it's country or techno, people want to relate their experience to something that comes from another angle. It's the same thing that Armando (I think) was saying back in the day about the acid house explosion in England. Something like, it's cool, but they heard the stuff we did and it's like they took the bleeps and carried on the tweaks, but they left the message. That was really what the music was about though, the message. But now all you hear are the blips and bleeps and there's no message to it, no feeling. Or something like that. (come to think of it, maybe that was larry too, can't remember). I think he's right on. But that's my opinion. I'll try to find that interview. Gonna be hard when I don't remember who I'm looking for. Think I smoked that memory just this morning too. Dangit. KKS
Re: (313) The more things change
On Thu, November 3, 2005 7:40 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Musically we are living in a period where every form of noise has been liberated - not to express something but rather to be explored for its own sake. I don't need music to carry some supposed meaning or feeling. There is a place for music with feeling, but there is also a place for abstract music that explores structured sonic possibilities for their own sake. Techno was ALWAYS about the surface anyway, it never was substantive compared to, say, Mozart. Techno is a special effect, a slowly mutating surface of noise vibrating over extremely repetitive rhythmic patters. And that is just fine with me. dave, youre my man but this is nonsense. making noise is just that: making noise. its not music. i own noise records. im not against noise. but its not the same game as making music. music DOES come with meaning and feeling. thats the whole point. without it, you could just listen to random sounds around you and feel as satisfied as if you just listened to a record. and since thats not the case, theyre not the same. tom
RE: (313) The more things change
On Thu, November 3, 2005 9:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be some confusion regarding emotion - are we talking about the listener's emotion, or the creator's emotion??? Both Larry Heard and Armando seem to think that the producer's of the music need to feel certain emotions to create good work. thats how it goes. otherwise, you could have machines write random lines of code that would be as emotionally satisfying as any soul music tune. I don't buy it. Neither one have any idea what the creators of this music were feeling, they just take THEIR emotional response as LISTENERS and project it back onto the creators - ie. this piece doesn't move me, so the creator of it must have lacked emotion when he made it. do you think it doesnt work that way? have you ever watched a live band play multiple shows? they can play the same songs, but not with the same feeling. and one time that song (when played with feeling) can crush you with its greatness. and another time, that song (when played with less feeling) just sounds ordinairy and uninspired. everything that is intrinsically part of the music was put there by the creator. any misinterpretations of it after that are the fault of the listener. I argue that what matters is the creator's skill. Listeners will tend to have an emotional response to a well constructed piece, but not necessarily a response that is unvarying or easy to describe. Autechre, for instance, makes me feel something but I'm not sure I could pin it into some simple emotional category. But it's not like I'm contemplating equations or something when I hear it, by any means. The music seems as emotional to my as anything else. thats odd. for me, the intention and emotion of instrumental songs is much more easy to pinpoint than the emotions that sometimes become tangled in music with specific lyrics. the emotions conveyed might not be something that you can even name, which is why instrumental music is so much better for conveying those emotions. I believe that much, even most, of the response to is rooted in the listener's mood, their environment, their cultural background, their own prejudices and their previous encounters with music. All these things are external to the music itself. Even for one individual, music might provoke different responses when sober as opposed to intoxicated, in different settings, etc. thats mostly true for anything. and i would still argue that any misinterpretations are on the side of the listener or interpreter as opposed to the artist who had something to convey in the first place. As for myself, I like interesting timbres, and I like interesting rhythms, and to me that is the definition of music: rhythm + timbre (pitch and harmony are, for me, subcategories of timbre). I'd hardly call this being moved by novelty, but I don't believe there is emotion in the music. interesting sounds are only as interesting as the sounds are novel. hearing the same sound over and over again gets on peoples nerves if there's no feeling behind it. this is why people are feeling the older tracks now, the lack of newness of the sounds is completely unimportant. its the feeling they care about. and when the feeling is good, the sounds dont matter. Usually abstract music does produce emotional responses in me, but I don't project them back onto the music itself. The emotions belong to ME, not to the music. thats funny. i find abstract stuff to be the most specific in emotional territory because it has no other goal than to convey emotions. there's no dancefloor ideal that people try to appeal to that could mess up those emotions. As a final example, I like Mozart now, whereas in the past I really had no taste for that type of music, though I did intellectually appreciate it. Now, I enjoy Mozart's music, and I feel something when I hear it - but the music never changed. It was my ability to listen that changed. thats a separate argument. all different genres of music require different listening styles. learning how to appreciate a new genre of music doesnt mean anything except that you are now open to experience the emotions that are within that music. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
What do people think of Grime? Electroclash? electroclash is rubbish (draws line) ;) Electroclash has been severely devalued by some on the basis of it's being a trend but, like anything, there are pretenders among the talented. Remember techno was flavour of the month once. Everything in hyper modernity surfaces as a trend. I don't think anyone seriously feels that Goldfrapp - or Ladyton - are in that category now, they've transcended it. In fact, the term is pretty much obsolete now as there is an electro revival in general. Even the prog DJs are playing Get Physical stuff. Anyways, did Michelangelo think he was doing 'Renaissance' art, no - he captured a moment that was subsequently identified as such. For me the likes of Goldfrapp are not merely reproducing the 80s but bringing a new playfulness, irony, to synth-pop. Goldfrapp's Supernature is New Romanticism recast, disco mythology and electro-pop - and I have not stopped playing it!!! I love what Ladytron are doing - their latest, Witching Hour, is dark occultic beauty - I hear Echo The Bunnymen in there, New Order, even Propaganda. Fisherspooner's last LP was OK - I don't understand the backlash. Tiga is fun, same Felix Da Housecat... What I *dislike* is the new electro rock emanating from Melbourne with BodyRockers. Their music is like a substitute for the old jukebox classics beloved in Aussie pubs. I understand its popularity but it's hackneyed stuff. They're ripping off Armand Van Helden at his own game. BodyRockers really smack of opportunism to me. What do people think of Grime? Electroclash? electroclash is rubbish (draws line) ;)
Re: (313) The more things change
Tiga is fun, Loved his DJ Kicks.. j
Re: (313) The more things change
Good point. I personally shrink when in interviews artists talk of emotion in relation to their work and don't define that too. What do you mean - sadness, despair, anger - or something that approximates emotion by being generally stirring? It's not v enlightening. But that's maybe just me... There seems to be some confusion regarding emotion
Re: (313) The more things change
I think we need to define what is a trend, what is a novelty? Baroque was a 'trend' once... For culture to evolve, you have cycles, and trends, then if it endures it maybe becomes a classic, as techno, or maybe a bad memory (like most 70s architecture!) and that too can change with the values of each generation... It's always been this way. Some people are moved by novelty far longer than others and can stand to hear new and interesting noises without caring if there was an ounce of emotion in it (moroder step bass anyone?). I have been guilty of this when listening to a new (insert anything sonic here). But at a point (unless you're that one track) you will change your tastes. And the one constant that I find most people wanting from their music regardless of genre is feeling. Whether it's country or techno, people want to relate their experience to something that comes from another angle. It's the same thing that Armando (I think) was saying back in the day about the acid house explosion in England. Something like, it's cool, but they heard the stuff we did and it's like they took the bleeps and carried on the tweaks, but they left the message. That was really what the music was about though, the message. But now all you hear are the blips and bleeps and there's no message to it, no feeling. Or something like that. (come to think of it, maybe that was larry too, can't remember). I think he's right on. But that's my opinion. I'll try to find that interview. Gonna be hard when I don't remember who I'm looking for. Think I smoked that memory just this morning too. Dangit. KKS
Re: (313) The more things change
Wow- I can't say much now except that is the exact opposite of how I define (experience would be a more accurate term) Techno ! (no offence meant though!) Jason On 3 Nov 2005, at 19:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm guessing he's not a big John Cage fan. Seriously, though I have great respect for Larry Heard as a producer, I have to disagree. A certain kind of feeling might define a GENRE, but it can never define all the possibilities available in the exploration of music as an art form. These fixed ideas about what is music and what is noise prevent innovation and evolution. And to fear evolution is not very techno. Musically we are living in a period where every form of noise has been liberated - not to express something but rather to be explored for its own sake. I don't need music to carry some supposed meaning or feeling. There is a place for music with feeling, but there is also a place for abstract music that explores structured sonic possibilities for their own sake. Techno was ALWAYS about the surface anyway, it never was substantive compared to, say, Mozart. Techno is a special effect, a slowly mutating surface of noise vibrating over extremely repetitive rhythmic patters. And that is just fine with me. np: Autechre - Untilted ~David but he called it a collection of noises - not music MEK
Re: (313) The more things change
Yes, exactly - people could, and people DO listen to random sounds as music. I live in the city and sometimes, the soundscape IS as satisfying as a record. Music is everywhere. Human produced music is only one sub-genre. Music is rhythm (time) + timbre (quality of vibration), perceived by an observer who categorizes the sounds as music. That's it! Anything else might apply to a style or genre, but is not broad enough to cover all musical activities in the world - you have to make the claim that some forms of musical activity are not actually music. Examples might include field recordings, tibetan ritual music, Merzbow or compositions by John Cage. Clearly, to a musicologist, all of these activities could be classified and studied as music, even if it doesn't fit with your personal definition. Also, in regards to emotion being important, consider that in some cultures (buddhist, for instance) emotions are viewed quite differently. The purpose of art and music in these cultures would be to still the mind rather than to provoke emotion. Indeed, I personally find that the music I enjoy best has just such an effect. ~David without it, you could just listen to random sounds around you and feel as satisfied as if you just listened to a record. and since thats not the case, theyre not the same. tom
Re: (313) The more things change
But are all those things you mention not emotions- and the things that define our relationship to the world about us and in this instance, the music we are discussing? Jason On 3 Nov 2005, at 23:23, Cyclone Wehner wrote: Good point. I personally shrink when in interviews artists talk of emotion in relation to their work and don't define that too. What do you mean - sadness, despair, anger - or something that approximates emotion by being generally stirring? It's not v enlightening. But that's maybe just me... There seems to be some confusion regarding emotion
Re: (313) The more things change
Maybe I wasn't very clear in that, of course they are, but when someone says I put emotion in my music or I wanted to convey emotion I get bored by cliches like that. It doesn't inspire you to hear the song, hey. Something more illuminating like I was feeling despair over this. But are all those things you mention not emotions- and the things that define our relationship to the world about us and in this instance, the music we are discussing? Jason On 3 Nov 2005, at 23:23, Cyclone Wehner wrote: Good point. I personally shrink when in interviews artists talk of emotion in relation to their work and don't define that too. What do you mean - sadness, despair, anger - or something that approximates emotion by being generally stirring? It's not v enlightening. But that's maybe just me... There seems to be some confusion regarding emotion
Re: (313) The more things change
I know that in our city there was a very long drought. Most shops didn't stock Detroit techno or keep up with new releases. Most people couldn't even tell you the name of fa Detroit techno/house artist. Suddenly within the last two years its popularity has exploded. Artists are getting booked: Stacey Pullen, Derrick May, Robert Hood, Claude Young, Ghostly artists, DJ Bone, Suburban Knight, Dan Bell, DJ 3000, etc. have all played here within the last two years. Local DJs are playing Detroit techno in clubs again. Some, not all, but some of the music is being stocked in shops again without me and the handful of people I know having to request it (which was the only way for a long time). The promoters and shop clerks who attended the DEMF/Movement festival (in year 4 or was it 5?) are responsible for that. Better late than never. I put lots of responsibility on the Detroit fest for raising the awareness in these parts. MEK Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] u To 313 313@hyperreal.org 11/01/05 09:18 PM cc Subject (313) The more things change Funsters I?m trying to get an understanding of techno in ?05 and if it?s any different from how it?s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it?s never going to grow beyond it?s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I?m curious to know how where it?s being heard enjoyed and if it?s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you?re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you?re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they?re clearly not ?peak time? records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
Not sure why I didn't see this originally. All of the below questions are questions I ask a lot. In the UK techno and house are pretty niche things nowadays, especially when talking about detroit. To a certain extent this is partially my perception of things. Like a lot of us I'm in my 30s now and probably out of touch with what the kids are listening to in clubs, if they are indeed going to clubs or whether they listen to dance music at all. I think maybe this list isn't the place to look for answers to this. From a personal point of view the stuff I've always liked is the slower type of techno you mention below, never really dug the more banging end of things. Anyone else or am I just an old f*rt? :) robin... I?m trying to get an understanding of techno in ?05 and if it?s any different from how it?s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it?s never going to grow beyond it?s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I?m curious to know how where it?s being heard enjoyed and if it?s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you?re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you?re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they?re clearly not ?peak time? records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
Robin, Yup count me in for the afternoon Techno Golden Oldies dance party in the recreation room at the convalescent home. San Diego report: Nothing happens here. Some promoters: Merge Life/ Kava Lounge, DJs: Tyler Brunnel and dirtyradio.net, Austin Speed (artist), myself, all seem to come from a classic house/ techno aesthetic. I'm sure there are more of us..but we all have a great habit of not connecting with one another, so a cohesive scene is never actualized...but it is slowly changing... Easy to freak out the yougins with 'Washing Machine' or 'It What It Is' or 'G Force'...anyone remember that Fuse track: 'Technotropik'?...first few minutes are bitchin' before it kind of moves into that lush 'Pacific State' territory. Anywho. The point: A lot of kids, yes, are more apt to name a superstar DJ than an actual producer, but when you drop some of the classics on them, they freak, and you get to be the wise elder/ hero. Back in the 80's and 90's: You had a lot of music that really made you sit up, take notice and ask What the hell is THAT! or even want to make you rush home to listen (again) to a new record you just bought. I rarely have that happen these days, in spite of some incredible/ inspiring music that is being produced. To Phils question: The context that I hear a lot of original House and Techno are in more lounge atmospheres, where the dance floor, though active, is not the focal point. (80 to 130 BPM) Has the DEMF raised any awareness to real/ buttkicking electronic nutiness? Nope. None that I can decipher out here in San Diego. I really like the pulse/ take on electronic music that Los Angeles' KCRW has taken. They web-cast/ archive. Lots of really great music, and I tune 'em in for their electronic programs. Look 'em up. They have been my saviours for the past 6 years since I have been living in the SD/ LA area. Best, Louis -Original Message- From: robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 2, 2005 7:04 AM To: 313 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) The more things change Not sure why I didn't see this originally. All of the below questions are questions I ask a lot. In the UK techno and house are pretty niche things nowadays, especially when talking about detroit. To a certain extent this is partially my perception of things. Like a lot of us I'm in my 30s now and probably out of touch with what the kids are listening to in clubs, if they are indeed going to clubs or whether they listen to dance music at all. I think maybe this list isn't the place to look for answers to this. From a personal point of view the stuff I've always liked is the slower type of techno you mention below, never really dug the more banging end of things. Anyone else or am I just an old f*rt? :) robin... I?m trying to get an understanding of techno in ?05 and if it?s any different from how it?s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it?s never going to grow beyond it?s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I?m curious to know how where it?s being heard enjoyed and if it?s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you?re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you?re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they?re clearly not ?peak time? records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
I am 22, but perhaps the minority, as I am constantly on a search for producers still using the now 'old' detroit techno sound. I live in the Detroit area and have trouble finding new detroit techno or electro records. However, I will say Orlando Voorn's new record 'bark before you bite' I think it is? Is some of the best and only Detroit electro to come out in a while. Presently, this city is so lacking in qaulity electronic music. It seems that most younger 'club' kids are stuck on minimal, and somewhat boring glitch. It has become so hard to hear detroit techno around here! I saw Stacey Pullen at Oslo not too long ago, and although I know his style has been leaning more torwards house for a while, he dropped not a single detroit techno track, nor any of his own detroit techno tracks. All I want to hear is that old sound with maybe some innovation. Instead however, I am simply left to reminisce on the past... Original message Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:35:01 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: fwdthought [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (313) The more things change To: robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Robin, Yup count me in for the afternoon Techno Golden Oldies dance party in the recreation room at the convalescent home. San Diego report: Nothing happens here. Some promoters: Merge Life/ Kava Lounge, DJs: Tyler Brunnel and dirtyradio.net, Austin Speed (artist), myself, all seem to come from a classic house/ techno aesthetic. I'm sure there are more of us..but we all have a great habit of not connecting with one another, so a cohesive scene is never actualized...but it is slowly changing... Easy to freak out the yougins with 'Washing Machine' or 'It What It Is' or 'G Force'...anyone remember that Fuse track: 'Technotropik'?...first few minutes are bitchin' before it kind of moves into that lush 'Pacific State' territory. Anywho. The point: A lot of kids, yes, are more apt to name a superstar DJ than an actual producer, but when you drop some of the classics on them, they freak, and you get to be the wise elder/ hero. Back in the 80's and 90's: You had a lot of music that really made you sit up, take notice and ask What the hell is THAT! or even want to make you rush home to listen (again) to a new record you just bought. I rarely have that happen these days, in spite of some incredible/ inspiring music that is being produced. To Phils question: The context that I hear a lot of original House and Techno are in more lounge atmospheres, where the dance floor, though active, is not the focal point. (80 to 130 BPM) Has the DEMF raised any awareness to real/ buttkicking electronic nutiness? Nope. None that I can decipher out here in San Diego. I really like the pulse/ take on electronic music that Los Angeles' KCRW has taken. They web-cast/ archive. Lots of really great music, and I tune 'em in for their electronic programs. Look 'em up. They have been my saviours for the past 6 years since I have been living in the SD/ LA area. Best, Louis -Original Message- From: robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 2, 2005 7:04 AM To: 313 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) The more things change Not sure why I didn't see this originally. All of the below questions are questions I ask a lot. In the UK techno and house are pretty niche things nowadays, especially when talking about detroit. To a certain extent this is partially my perception of things. Like a lot of us I'm in my 30s now and probably out of touch with what the kids are listening to in clubs, if they are indeed going to clubs or whether they listen to dance music at all. I think maybe this list isn't the place to look for answers to this. From a personal point of view the stuff I've always liked is the slower type of techno you mention below, never really dug the more banging end of things. Anyone else or am I just an old f*rt? :) robin... I?m trying to get an understanding of techno in ?05 and if it?s any different from how it?s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it?s never going to grow beyond it?s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I?m curious to know how where it?s being heard enjoyed and if it?s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you?re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you?re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact
Re: (313) The more things change
There's been a couple of scary threads lately, 'Who do you rate under 25?' As it turns out, there's hardly anyone of that age producing Detroit techno! And now this one 'Where is techno headed?' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) Don't forget the talc. Philip wrote: Funsters I’m trying to get an understanding of techno in ’05 and if it’s any different from how it’s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it’s never going to grow beyond it’s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I’m curious to know how where it’s being heard enjoyed and if it’s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you’re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you’re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they’re clearly not ‘peak time’ records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
Is that Dave Leedham DJing? - Original Message - From: Jamie Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:09 PM Subject: Re: (313) The more things change There's been a couple of scary threads lately, 'Who do you rate under 25?' As it turns out, there's hardly anyone of that age producing Detroit techno! And now this one 'Where is techno headed?' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) Don't forget the talc. Philip wrote: Funsters I’m trying to get an understanding of techno in ’05 and if it’s any different from how it’s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it’s never going to grow beyond it’s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I’m curious to know how where it’s being heard enjoyed and if it’s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you’re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you’re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they’re clearly not ‘peak time’ records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
Funny, I was thinking of the parallels between Detroit techno and Northern Soul the other day. I think there's definitely something to it. Apart from the obvious similarity of being centered on music from Detroit, I think that there's a fair amount in common there. Looking at those pictures, I can think of worse things that ending up like that. We're all going to get old if we live long enough, and a fair number of us will put on weight etc, but that's going to happen whether we're still into music or not, so obviously I'd prefer the former. On 2 Nov 2005, at 21:09, Jamie Stewart wrote: There's been a couple of scary threads lately, 'Who do you rate under 25?' As it turns out, there's hardly anyone of that age producing Detroit techno! And now this one 'Where is techno headed?' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) Don't forget the talc. Philip wrote: Funsters I’m trying to get an understanding of techno in ’05 and if it’s any different from how it’s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it’s never going to grow beyond it’s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I’m curious to know how where it’s being heard enjoyed and if it’s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you’re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you’re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they’re clearly not ‘peak time’ records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
It is, in fact it's his website. Martin Dust wrote: Is that Dave Leedham DJing? - Original Message - From: Jamie Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:09 PM Subject: Re: (313) The more things change There's been a couple of scary threads lately, 'Who do you rate under 25?' As it turns out, there's hardly anyone of that age producing Detroit techno! And now this one 'Where is techno headed?' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) Don't forget the talc. Philip wrote: Funsters I’m trying to get an understanding of techno in ’05 and if it’s any different from how it’s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it’s never going to grow beyond it’s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I’m curious to know how where it’s being heard enjoyed and if it’s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you’re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you’re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they’re clearly not ‘peak time’ records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
I was reading The In Crowd this weekend as well, and I also reckon your not far wrong either... m - Original Message - From: Jamie Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Dust [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:46 PM Subject: Re: (313) The more things change It is, in fact it's his website. Martin Dust wrote: Is that Dave Leedham DJing? - Original Message - From: Jamie Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:09 PM Subject: Re: (313) The more things change There's been a couple of scary threads lately, 'Who do you rate under 25?' As it turns out, there's hardly anyone of that age producing Detroit techno! And now this one 'Where is techno headed?' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) Don't forget the talc. Philip wrote: Funsters I’m trying to get an understanding of techno in ’05 and if it’s any different from how it’s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it’s never going to grow beyond it’s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I’m curious to know how where it’s being heard enjoyed and if it’s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you’re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you’re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they’re clearly not ‘peak time’ records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
I agree. I'm just taking the p.iss is all. I love a bit of northern in fact my ipod contains both types of music . Northern and techno. You're right about the similarities though. The worrying one is the unwillingness to accept change, which has really been the death knell for northern. No new people coming onto the scene, not allowing modern or deep soul tracks to be played at nighters etc. On the flip though, you can take things too far. I don;t agree with letting little kids join in on the fun like this one. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/bcsc/pages/bcscjuly22_jpg.htm That's just wrong. It reminds me of growing up in southend in the 70's, I'd see all these sad old Teds with their replica Ted kids. Weird Dan Bean wrote: Funny, I was thinking of the parallels between Detroit techno and Northern Soul the other day. I think there's definitely something to it. Apart from the obvious similarity of being centered on music from Detroit, I think that there's a fair amount in common there. Looking at those pictures, I can think of worse things that ending up like that. We're all going to get old if we live long enough, and a fair number of us will put on weight etc, but that's going to happen whether we're still into music or not, so obviously I'd prefer the former. On 2 Nov 2005, at 21:09, Jamie Stewart wrote: There's been a couple of scary threads lately, 'Who do you rate under 25?' As it turns out, there's hardly anyone of that age producing Detroit techno! And now this one 'Where is techno headed?' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) Don't forget the talc. Philip wrote: Funsters I’m trying to get an understanding of techno in ’05 and if it’s any different from how it’s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it’s never going to grow beyond it’s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I’m curious to know how where it’s being heard enjoyed and if it’s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you’re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you’re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they’re clearly not ‘peak time’ records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
Thing is, you may be taking the urine but it's a lot closer than you think, all you have to do is read the first two chapters of the In Crowd and it's pretty much mapped out, I guess all we have to do is not repeat the past because Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it... m - Original Message - From: Jamie Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dan Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:05 PM Subject: Re: (313) The more things change I agree. I'm just taking the p.iss is all. I love a bit of northern in fact my ipod contains both types of music . Northern and techno. You're right about the similarities though. The worrying one is the unwillingness to accept change, which has really been the death knell for northern. No new people coming onto the scene, not allowing modern or deep soul tracks to be played at nighters etc. On the flip though, you can take things too far. I don;t agree with letting little kids join in on the fun like this one. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/bcsc/pages/bcscjuly22_jpg.htm That's just wrong. It reminds me of growing up in southend in the 70's, I'd see all these sad old Teds with their replica Ted kids. Weird Dan Bean wrote: Funny, I was thinking of the parallels between Detroit techno and Northern Soul the other day. I think there's definitely something to it. Apart from the obvious similarity of being centered on music from Detroit, I think that there's a fair amount in common there. Looking at those pictures, I can think of worse things that ending up like that. We're all going to get old if we live long enough, and a fair number of us will put on weight etc, but that's going to happen whether we're still into music or not, so obviously I'd prefer the former. On 2 Nov 2005, at 21:09, Jamie Stewart wrote: There's been a couple of scary threads lately, 'Who do you rate under 25?' As it turns out, there's hardly anyone of that age producing Detroit techno! And now this one 'Where is techno headed?' Well, if you want to know where techno is headed in the next 10 years the answer can be summed up in two words. 'Northern Soul'. Check out these amphetamine addled crumblies. http://www.okehsoulclub.myby.co.uk/snapper/images/darl/index.htm That's you lot in 10 years that is ;-) Don't forget the talc. Philip wrote: Funsters I’m trying to get an understanding of techno in ’05 and if it’s any different from how it’s always been, i.e. relatively marginal. It seems that the scene is quite healthy, with lots of good new music, but it also seems that it’s never going to grow beyond it’s current niche 'market', if you like. I know that once people hear proper techno house, they dig it, but I’m curious to know how where it’s being heard enjoyed and if it’s audience has changed at all in the last 20 years. Do you think that there is a greater awareness and appreciation of 313 techno over the past 5 or 6 years, i.e. post-DEMF / Movement? If you’re a label or shop owner - are you selling more records CDs? If you’re a radio or club DJ - do you play much techno and what kind of response or feedback to you get? I have noticed that there are quite a lot of new releases with relatively slow tempos, under 125 BPM or thereabouts. Does this make a difference to where and when you play these records, given the fact that they’re clearly not ‘peak time’ records for most club dancefloors? Innerested to hear what peeps have found. Thanx. Sorry for the lousy formatting. philski
Re: (313) The more things change
Jamie Stewart wrote: That's just wrong. It reminds me of growing up in southend in the 70's, I'd see all these sad old Teds with their replica Ted kids. Weird. Just when I have a safe footing in my mid thirties someone pulls me back to puberty. damn you. I can smell the winkles, silk cut, lager tops and never cleaned toilets too. h. ...steve...
