TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Amazing new discovery in the early house/ acid house music history
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »

Can we just go back to the threads where we say NO to long paragraphs, and NO to in-depth analysis and debate, and just spam youtube links and drool over how much we love the ch00ns?

quote:

Originally posted by enydo Can we just go back to the threads where we say NO to long paragraphs, and NO to in-depth analysis and debate, and just spam youtube links and drool over how much we love the ch00ns?

hey i don't know about you guys, but i'm drooling over half the youtube vids posted in this thread.

i didn't know that z factor, btw, so thanks for introducing me.

quote:

people like System-J and nefardec are all over the place and act like someone desecrated a sacred part of their non-existent pasts when they see a definition of a genre different from theirs.

Yes but we need people like these guys to discuss these topics, or else we would have a generation of Trance guys starting to broadcast that House originated from the brothels of Calcutta. A lot (most) of the information they are saying is correct. But I do agree with you that genre wars are extremely immature. House vs Trance is the funniest of them.

quote:

that's what we do in the 'music discussion' forum. my age and experience doesn't prevent me from being able to have an opinion on anything.

This is exactly right. In fact, it's not difficult to reverse engineer what happened, or even the entire history of it. You should speak up about these things because there really isn't much academic work on this music, and even if there was, it would probably be a shot in the dark, because it is the underground club scene afterall.

One day I'll post some mixes for you guys, after I buy the CDJ-2000's. Luckily I archived all my vinyl years ago onto DAT. So true on the Tees Happy, there's the Acid sound right there. The Z Factor one I'm talking about is called I'm The DJ. It was on the Dance Party LP and also the yellow label 12". It's pretty terrible but definitely primitive House. The first production I've found from the pioneer Chicago producers was Fast Cars by Z-Factor (1983) on the early Mitchbal label. If you flip it over you even see Kenny Jammin Jason on the remix. This was technically before the On-And-On 12" on Jessay, but Fast Cars was more of a new wave type track...where On-And-On had the House claps in it.

quote:

Can we just go back to the threads where we say NO to long paragraphs, and NO to in-depth analysis and debate

If we did that human beings wouldn't learn. There's nothing wrong with learning something new. If you don't like it, don't read it.

And Nefardec, if you want to go read something hilarious, go onto Wikipedia, and go onto the page for Techno music. If you scroll down to the Chicago section, you see some Techno moron who tried to say that Juan Atkins sold a 303 machine to Frankie, and thus, this was responsible for the creation of House music. I went in and tried to edit it, but some Techno nerd changed it back. I changed it to "Juan Atkins also believes....or something" - so it's only of this guys opinion. Before it said "Many Believe".....as if the 303 Machine CREATED House music, let alone the 303 that Juan sold himself.

Isn't it hilarious? This is the type of crap I'm talking about from these old guys. Just because someones even there from the beginning doesn't mean they are correct. Read the line "House sound developed AS A RESULT". There were many DJs besides Frankie - he was one of many. Did you know Chip E was one of the first House DJs. Notice also he said "This was before the Chicago guys were making records" - what about Vince Lawrence, Jesse Saunders, Mr. Lee, and Duane Bufford and all those guys...he doesn't even mention them...whom were likely all producing before him.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Santiago If we did that human beings wouldn't learn. There's nothing wrong with learning something new. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I don't need to learn.

I know EVERYTHING I'll EVER need to know.

quote:

Originally posted by enydo Everything i need to know i learned at the marcy

ftfy

quote:

Originally posted by sljiva And that's the funniest thing about this discussions - people like you and Tance-MB who were actually involved in these movements are keeping a low profile and seldom discuss these silly genre divisions, while people like System-J and nefardec are all over the place and act like someone desecrated a sacred part of their non-existent pasts when they see a definition of a genre different from theirs.

What do you expect to achieve with these constant niggling, passive-aggressive, impotent little posts? Do you think if you keep making them, we'll suddenly change our behaviour? I also find it somewhat baffling, given I've often seen you pompously discussing albums that were released when you were about 10 years old and your albums of the decade list features such hilariously pedantic genre descriptions as "IDM, Drum & Bass, Ambient, Glitch" and "Techno, Deep Techno, Ambient". Oh, and Trance-MB had never heard of Hardfloor. Being there doesn't mean you automatically have anything valuable to add.

Anyway, who gives a fuck that people didn't care in 1987? This thread is happening on a fucking Internet forum in 2011. It's productive to look back at music history once the dust has settled and pick out the details. You've got more insight, more thought and more articles in this thread than ten shitty Youtube post threads. Besides, it should be obvious to everyone that Avana and I will push a point just for the hell of it, because 90% of the people in MD don't have anything to say. We argue about these things because it's good fun. MD is a fucking morgue most of the time. But apparently we shouldn't be discussing old music because we weren't born early enough. Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Santiago I agree on what you refer to here as the 2nd wave, and this 2nd wave you speak of is the Acid House movement. It was the next generation of partiers. According to you though if the 303 was Acid, and it was placed in a House record, 'Acid House' did in fact exist in 1985.

That's fine by me, because it means you're agreeing with my definition.

I'm fully prepared to agree that second wave house music all got lumped in as "Acid house" for a time, but my whole point is about the wider use of "acid" as a term, and with remarkable consistency in the last 25 years it has been used by producers, clubbers, DJs and journalists to refer to the sounds of a tweaked TB-303. I don't think it's necessary to list the thousands of such utterences, because they are omnipresent to the point of self-evidence.


I simply think it's far easier and more helpful to define acid as the tweaked 303, and while you can recognise that the term has had broader connotations at various points of history, that's the core meaning. There are a lot of genre tags and buzzwords that were used broadly and excitably in the early years of a movement, only to get smoothed out in retrospect. Second-wave house encapsulates a lot, including American records and British mutations. Some of those records were very minimalist and foreboding, others were warm and euphoric. I would never stretch "acid" to mean all of it.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I simply think it's far easier and more helpful to define acid as the tweaked 303, and while you can recognise that the term has had broader connotations at various points of history, that's the core meaning. There are a lot of genre tags and buzzwords that were used broadly and excitably in the early years of a movement, only to get smoothed out in retrospect. Second-wave house encapsulates a lot, including American records and British mutations. Some of those records were very minimalist and foreboding, others were warm and euphoric. I would never stretch "acid" to mean all of it.

I don't really like to stretch things too much, though I have for the sake of discussion in this thread, but there are definitely select records like 'Bang the Box' and 'Preacher Man' and the K&T remix of 'This is Acid' that think are just acid emeritus if not acid proper.

Maybe if 'acid house' were a country, you could say the national dance was 'jacking', the national genre was house, and the national bird was was the TB303, or 'acid' in the national slang.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I simply think it's far easier and more helpful to define acid as the tweaked 303, and while you can recognise that the term has had broader connotations at various points of history, that's the core meaning. There are a lot of genre tags and buzzwords that were used broadly and excitably in the early years of a movement, only to get smoothed out in retrospect. Second-wave house encapsulates a lot, including American records and British mutations. Some of those records were very minimalist and foreboding, others were warm and euphoric. I would never stretch "acid" to mean all of it.

I agree with this, i personally associate acid with a tb303 sound specifically but like i mentioned previously there were instances where it sounded close to sound like acid, like the on the run by pink floyd.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec ftfy

They taught me how to properly roll a $20.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J What do you expect to achieve with these constant niggling, passive-aggressive, impotent little posts? Do you think if you keep making them, we'll suddenly change our behaviour?

The same thing you expect from other nonbelievers when you're out there genre crusading. Well, maybe even less than that. I'm just pointing out your idiocy. Now, if you're willing to change your behaviour of not is completely up to you, but the fact that in-depth genre label analysis is reatrded still stands.

And for someone who's constantly crying for being strawmanned, you don't seem to have a problem pulling one or two yourself (and not just you as I can see). Where the fuck did I say we shouldn't discuss music made before our time? I'm completely with Bryce when he says meaningful discussion about these old/forgotten types of music is much needed, but you're too often concentrating on what's least important. This thread is a perfect example - interesting start with inevitable debunkment, and then the irrelevant blather comes up. With all of your self-important thoughts and laughable proofs you managed to resolve exactly nothing, and judging by the interest from other members, your little revelation will have zero effect on anyone but you two. Because, let's repeat this once again, calling a track without 303 in it acid house (or other way around, I'm not taking anyone's side) was not a big deal almost 25 years ago when the music was actually relevant, and sure as hell is not a big deal now.

And I'm glad you read my list, but you should've also read the introduction and then come here and strawman me if you still feel like it.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Maybe if 'acid house' were a country, you could say the national dance was 'jacking', the national genre was house, and the national bird was was the TB303, or 'acid' in the national slang.

That has to be the most clumsy clusterfuck of an explanation I've ever read.

Also, it's been bought up quite often during my time here: people saying "You're just a genre compartmentalist! You can't keep cramming music into all these little perfectly labelled boxes! Music defies that!"

That's a ridiculous sentiment, because that's the whole reason genres exist in the first place. If music has certain characteristic, yes - it can and should be labelled as whatever it is. Obviously there are cases where a certain piece occupies more than one genre or style, but that doesn't change the state of play.

quote:

Originally posted by sljiva The same thing you expect from other nonbelievers when you're out there genre crusading. Well, maybe even less than that. I'm just pointing out your idiocy. Now, if you're willing to change your behaviour of not is completely up to you, but the fact that in-depth genre label analysis is reatrded still stands.

I've changed my mind plenty of times based on discussions on TA, and I know my opponents often have too. Even in this thread you can see a move towards compromise. However, nobody's ever going to change their mind just because some whiny fuckstick follows them around saying little more than "You're an idiot, you look ridiculous, you are reatrded".

The following may sound arrogant, but as I'm up against a guy who wants to dictate the nature of discussion on TA I frankly don't give a fuck about that. If you think nobody cares about what I have to say or that nobody is reading, you should take a look at my PM inbox sometime. I don't go into threads like this for anything other than a stimulating argument, but I seem to lucky enough that people value what I have to say.

quote:

And for someone who's constantly crying for being strawmanned, you don't seem to have a problem pulling one or two yourself (and not just you as I can see). Where the fuck did I say we shouldn't discuss music made before our time? I'm completely with Bryce when he says meaningful discussion about these old/forgotten types of music is much needed, but you're too often concentrating on what's least important.

You're right, I should have specified "in this way." Because apparently if you were there in 1987 you can say even the most illogical nonsense and it has weight, but if you weren't you will dismiss it out of hand, for the nature of the discussion rather than any content. It is begging the question to decide what is "least important" about this topic while never actually bothering to state your reasoning.

quote:

And I'm glad you read my list, but you should've also read the introduction and then come here and strawman me if you still feel like it.

I have read it. You say you barely included genres, and then went the whole hog anyway. Your intro extensively discusses genres, even as it claims to de-emphasise them. It's the same here. We know this stuff doesn't matter (insofar as anything can "matter" in music discussion) but it's still entertaining and instructive to indulge in it.

Why did you break his post up into separate points and then respond to each one individually? You're not trying to have a discussion, you're just annoyed he's disagreeing with you! You're just trying to rebut everything he says rather than have a proper debate!

You're right. There is no proper debate to be had.

So, no comment on your hypocrisy then?

Why do you think I haven't accused nefardec of doing those things, even though he's been chopping up my posts for most of the thread?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Why do you think I haven't accused nefardec of doing those things, even though he's been chopping up my posts for most of the thread?

For the exact reason I thought before you wrote that post. You're so utterly desperate to win every argument you engage in that you'll turn to petty points you don't actually believe or care about in order to discredit your opponent.

So why not do it again here? Is it because you're a better debater than anyone else and I just couldn't live with your heat? Or is it because you blatantly weren't listening to me in that thread and your dice and slice approach was symptomatic of that?

I freely admit I'm not trying to maintain a coherent train of discussion with slijva, because there was never one to begin with. By his own admission, he's simply out to call me an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J So why not do it again here? Is it because you're a better debater than anyone else and I just couldn't live with your heat? Or is it because you blatantly weren't listening to me in that thread and your dice and slice approach was symptomatic of that?

No, it's for the reason I outlined above. And regardless of what your motives are for doing it now, you're still being completely hypocritical. Or are you going to try and convince me that when you do it, it's different?

You're either a simpleton or trying to misrepresent me if you think I believe it's inherently wrong to chop a post up when replying to it. People have done it to me in this thread, I've done it to people. People have done it to me in many other threads. The reason I got sick of you doing it to the point of excess in that prior thread had nothing to do with trying to win the argument. It had everything to do with the fact we weren't even having the same argument, because you weren't actually bothering to listen to me.

So to be precise, it's not different when I do it, it's different when you do it. I used to be very prone to it, but I got sick of it, not least because I recognised it's mainly about petty point scoring. I try to do it as little as possible now, although sometimes it's necessary for clarity and sometimes it's effective retaliation from shit-flinging.

Oooh, I want to play, too! Dubstep is a shitgimmick! NOTART.

But what about post-dubstep?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You're either a simpleton or trying to misrepresent me if you think I believe it's inherently wrong to chop a post up when replying to it. People have done it to me in this thread, I've done it to people. People have done it to me in many other threads. The reason I got sick of you doing it to the point of excess in that prior thread had nothing to do with trying to win the argument. It had everything to do with the fact we weren't even having the same argument, because you weren't actually bothering to listen to me. So to be precise, it's not different when I do it, it's different when you do it. I used to be very prone to it, but I got sick of it, not least because I recognised it's mainly about petty point scoring. I try to do it as little as possible now, although sometimes it's necessary for clarity and sometimes it's effective retaliation from shit-flinging.

Fuck dude, try to belittle my intelligence a little bit harder. Anyone who can read would agree that this:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Right, to answer Domesticated's points. I'm not going into slicing this argument up into a bunch of individual points, because the discussion rapidly loses focus and dissolves into point-scoring debating of increasingly inconsequential tangents.

Equates to "it's wrong to cut posts up into little pieces." And don't try and spin any shit about the fact that you're not having a discussion or argument with sljiva, because that's exactly what you're doing. Anything written here with people quoting one another is a discussion. And by your very own words, "the discussion loses focus."

My intention in slicing up posts is exactly what you said in your last sentence - for clarity. Personally, I find it easier to see what is being said and responded to. It's got nothing to do with point-scoring, and everything to do with addressing points for other points, so that huge slabs of texts don't appear below each other and responses to specific things become obfuscated by dint of being confused with other things. From my standpoint it's also easier because I can break the points into discrete dot points in order to assess each section of its own merit. I'm sure you've noticed that I quite often (perhaps unnecessarily) use lettered and numbered dot points in explaining myself? It's for the same reason. Lastly, dot points personally stop me from going on tangents, not the other way around. If I'm just typing a huge wall of text then I'm liable to type for longer, and elaborate, as opposed to giving a punchy, concise reply to a single idea.

Just be a fucking man and admit you're wrong for once. And a hypocrite to boot. Maybe you might get further in life if you're weren't such an obdurate little shit all the time. I'm fully willing to admit that you're probably more intelligent and motivated than I am, but at least I can admit when I'm wrong, see my mistakes, apologise and move on.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Just be a fucking man and admit you're wrong for once. And a hypocrite to boot. Maybe you might get further in life if you're weren't such an obdurate little shit all the time. I'm fully willing to admit that you're probably more intelligent and motivated than I am, but at least I can admit when I'm wrong, see my mistakes, apologise and move on.

Are you having a bad day, or something? I'm very surprised you've decided at this point of this thread to resurrect this little grudge, given there have been plenty of times in the last few months you could have done this. I've already said, quite literally, "You're right" and admitted I'm willingly letting this discussion lose focus. What do you want, exactly? Absolution? I'm a hypocrite when I don't think the other party doesn't deserve any better. I'll use little more than insults if, say, Rodri Santos embellishes a thread with his stupidity.

But if you expect me to admit that I criticised your hack and slash debate method because I needed some way of taking you down, you can fuck right off. I made solid posts in both the drum 'n bass thread and the trance bassline thread, and you didn't muster a reply to either of them.

you so waited to hit send to have that time on your post.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.