quote:

Originally posted by Schadenfreude

i prefer this UR track



but yes UR is awesome.

___________________
Whooooooo Hawwwww Whoooooo Hawwwww. - Busta Rhymes 3:16

www.soundcloud.com/le-freak

Le Freak - Funk for Cows (pure fat bitch haus..click and free wet naps.)

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I don't think I agree with that. Electro has many influences just like techno, and european electronic music was just one (and I would argue not the dominant influence). By and large the influence was from funk and the isolation of the breakbeat, and the development of the roland 808.

And this depends on where you draw the line on "electro". I'd call Kraftwerk electro all day long. If you look at Planet Rock, widely
considered one of the very first "electro funk" records (or whatever), it really is just two Krafwerk tracks spliced together and rapped over. The crowd vocalists even chant a part from Numbers at one point.

Kraftwerk always had the solid rhythmic groove in their records - as Bambaataa himself said, "These funky white boys made me dance". The original Numbers is mostly just a series of interlocked vocal layers over that never-ending groove. It didn't need the the invention of the hip-hop breakbeat to loop that beat, because Kraftwerk looped it themselves.

quote:

As far as genre goes, I don't think that the core notion of detroit techno was much different than that of electro, except for the fact that the people who made detroit techno were from detroit. Could you clarify 'core notion', though? I am confused as to whether this presupposes conscious intent on the part of the artist or otherwise.

This in itself depends on whether you believe genres exist autonomously. If you believe a genre is a genre regardless of what it's called or how it's marketed, then it would be unconscious. If you believe a genre is something manufactured, whether by the proponents or by external forces, it's conscious, at least by those who lead and not followed.

To go back to the Bevilleville trio, they more or less consciously created their own genre and its manifesto through their soundbites and their self-publicising. That's quite probably why they are historically singled out. Where as other producers from the scene would just have been making their own take on electronic music of the period, the Belleville kids were sat down with a tape recorder by John McCready and co and delineated techno. If they hadn't done that, would we ever have seperated techno from electro, or indeed Chicago house?

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J And this depends on where you draw the line on "electro". I'd call Kraftwerk electro all day long. If you look at Planet Rock, widely considered one of the very first "electro funk" records (or whatever), it really is just two Krafwerk tracks spliced together and rapped over. The crowd vocalists even chant a part from Numbers at one point. Kraftwerk always had the solid rhythmic groove in their records - as Bambaataa himself said, "These funky white boys made me dance". The original Numbers is mostly just a series of interlocked vocal layers over that never-ending groove. It didn't need the the invention of the hip-hop breakbeat to loop that beat, because Kraftwerk looped it themselves.

I think Kraftwerk were making kraftwerk, and nothing else - their (rare) interviews speak to this as well. Planet Rock certainly covered kraftwerk, but I don't think it was 'electro' until kraftwerk met george clinton, so to speak.

You have a point with kraftwerk looping the beat, because people would break to kraftwerk originals too. But IMO this just was just something that made it easily accessible in a culture that already broke to funk breaks.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This in itself depends on whether you believe genres exist autonomously. If you believe a genre is a genre regardless of what it's called or how it's marketed, then it would be unconscious. If you believe a genre is something manufactured, whether by the proponents or by external forces, it's conscious, at least by those who lead and not followed. To go back to the Bevilleville trio, they more or less consciously created their own genre and its manifesto through their soundbites and their self-publicising. That's quite probably why they are historically singled out. Where as other producers from the scene would just have been making their own take on electronic music of the period, the Belleville kids were sat down with a tape recorder by John McCready and co and delineated techno. If they hadn't done that, would we ever have seperated techno from electro, or indeed Chicago house?

I personally regard genre as autonomous and larger than the artists themselves.

I still regard the earliest detroit techno as simply a detroit take on classic nyc electrofunk, in the context of the detroit-chicago club scene. I think the artists toyed around with the ideas of alvin toffler and what not, but from everything I've read it seems that it was mostly post-rationalization and mythologizing after the fact.

Then it seems like at some point the emergence of a certain style of production and a stronger place in a cultural context gave birth to the 'genre'.

I think it was mostly derrick may who was doing the soundbites - the others seem to have much less to say about it. It's funny you mention the manifesto and what not, because I remember having a discussion on genre once before concerning jeff mills, and we were arguing about whether cultural content was a necessary part of genre or not - at the time you seemed to be averse to discussing anything outside of the music as related to genre - i've noticed you are talking now more about these two ways of looking at genre, so where are you personally on the issue now?

As I said earlier in this thread, I wasn't emphasising genre in that previous argument, more music as a form.

But the truth is I don't exclusively subscribe to either inner or outer form classification, because in my eyes different genres work in different ways. With, say, jungle or dubstep I use a very rigidly outer form definition - jungle is basically a pitched up breakbeat over half-tempo elements. But with progressive house, I know from experience that there is no structure, tempo or anything other musical element that defines it. Even looking solely at first-wave prog, there are tracks that are very vertical, dubby and drummy and others that are very songy with verses and chorus sections. So with prog I define it by its ethos of bringing different influences to an early-90s house scene that had stratified into Italian and garage.

I'm talking about techno in an inner-form way here because it's how you've defined it before: its futurism and so on. I remember you saying "techno derives its strength from the machine". These are conceptual ways of looking at a genre, rather than strictly musical ones.

I'm just struggling to reconcile you on the one hand saying genres are autonomous forces that can be described in conceptual terms of what they stand for, and then on the other hand say "techno was just electro as made for Detroit tastes", which is the most no-nonsense outer-form kind of description.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I'm just struggling to reconcile you on the one hand saying genres are autonomous forces that can be described in conceptual terms of what they stand for, and then on the other hand say "techno was just electro as made for Detroit tastes", which is the most no-nonsense outer-form kind of description.

In the latter sense I am describing its basic origin, and in the former I am describing what it became a little bit later - I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

Also, electro carried the original seed of the whole futurism thing, which comes from both futurism in funk (as precendent but also contemporaneous) (eg parliament funkadelic, sun ra, herbie hancock, george benson etc) and european music like kraftwerk, and when i say it was electro made for detroit tastes, this is implicit - so it's not really an outer-form description.

i remember now that the earlier jeff mills discussion had to do with whether outer form was separable from inner form. I maintain that there is a relationship, but that the relationship itself can differ, and that this relationship itself is a critical part of genre. (eg is it ironic, cynical, parodical, mythological, etc)

also - where can i read more about this paradigm of inner/outer form in genre? (sorry, i forget if you posted it earlier) - was it the work of wellek and warren?

Last edited by nefardec on Nov-24-2009 at 17:17

now everybody post some techno and save this thread.

*does the flinstone flop*

___________________
Whooooooo Hawwwww Whoooooo Hawwwww. - Busta Rhymes 3:16

www.soundcloud.com/le-freak

Le Freak - Funk for Cows (pure fat bitch haus..click and free wet naps.)

ill make a new techno thread, no hate there just post some love.

or was there no need? errrr, deletion?

White people ruined techno.

Fuck you Dubfire.

dubfire is an arab

bas ruined techno with cece peniston

___________________
Whooooooo Hawwwww Whoooooo Hawwwww. - Busta Rhymes 3:16

www.soundcloud.com/le-freak

Le Freak - Funk for Cows (pure fat bitch haus..click and free wet naps.)