This whole discussion is getting completey silly and pointless. I've never liked genre labels, and I tend to ignore them completely. We all like what we like, and should produce what we enjoy. Good music is good music, no matter the style. Call it whatever you want, electro, electro house, house with an electroish feel, who cares, so long as it sounds good and has some soul in it.

PS: I see what I did, I used the term electro very loosely, to describe music that has electro elements to it. I throw that around as a general term, but I see it just confuses the issue.

Last edited by zodiac9 on Nov-07-2007 at 02:22

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I thought that fad died in 2006, around the same time the minimal fad started. Please at least do us all a favour and don't call it "electro house" if it has nothing in common with either electro or house.

Huh? Who would do this, and why? You've seen this done before?

i guess beatport doesnt know what their talking about then...?

quote:

Originally posted by zodiac9 Huh? Who would do this, and why?

Steve Lawler?

quote:

You've seen this done before?

Yes. Constantly. For the past 4 years. You haven't?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by piku303 i guess beatport doesnt know what their talking about then...?

I understand that basic genre labels are necessary for marketing purposes. The numerous sub genre labels start to become unnecessary. Some music can easily fit into several genres, the demilma is that they have to choose one. Flip a coin I guess? I don't shop for music at the online shops, I listen to DJ sets and then go buy the tracks I like. I just find it maddening sifting through all the genre listings at the shops.

Have I single handedly derailed the topic? Sorry, LOL!

In summation, piku303, yes, it you enjoy producing ELECTRO HOUSE (see, I said it right that time) then by all means do so. I think it will be popular for quite a long time. You are not selling out by doing so. Exploring a new genre can only expand your musical horizons. Keep producing Trance if you want, do both.

Last edited by zodiac9 on Nov-07-2007 at 03:25

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Steve Lawler?

That's interesting. You might be right on this one. From what I've heard from Lawler, it's mostly techo and house. I pay so little attention to genre labels, I din't notice what genre tags are being pinned on his various flavors of music. Genre labeling seems to depend on who you ask though. That's why I don't pay too much attention to it. All that matters to me is if I like the track or not.

quote:

Originally posted by zodiac9 Lawler

he lols alot.

haha

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm he lols alot.

___________________
Recently released:
Aesthetic - Twilight Sky [Primal-Recordings]

http://www.wtfnews.org

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja lies and slander.

Bangers and mash.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm mr. mystery causes cancer. he's proud of it too.

It's true. It's my only real achievement in life.

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]

quote:

Originally posted by piku303 think about classical composers like mozart and bach. they stuck to one genre and made some of the most amazing music ever.

No they didnt, Bach made fuges, concertos, sonatas, chorales, etc, etc!

Or are you saying they only made 'classical'?

i know they made different pieces in those styles but every style follows the same general rules. awsome point though. are the "fuges, concertos, sonatas, chorales, etc, etc..." different genres within classical music or are they just different iterations of the classical genre? the point im trying to get acrossed is that these composers made amazing music under rules more strict than anything known today, so why then would it be bad for modern day producers as us to stick to one genre that has very stringent "rules" on how it should sound? this point is difficult to explain to one thats not taken college leval theory because you see how incredibly strict classical tonal music is.

quote:

Originally posted by piku303 i know they made different pieces in those styles but every style follows the same general rules. awsome point though. are the "fuges, concertos, sonatas, chorales, etc, etc..." different genres within classical music or are they just different iterations of the classical genre?

My point is that you cant say they all composed 'classical' because, at the time, there was no 'classical music'. What we now call 'classical' was pretty much all there was back then, so, at the time, those types I listed would have been their equivelant of 'genres', and people like Bach were much more versatile than composers who, for example, only composed chorales...imho...

I agree though that there is nothing wrong with sticking to one genre, but also, if you feel like creating music in other genres, like Bach did, there is no reason not to do so...