quote:

Originally posted by sljiva Animal Collective

Is dancepunk, same genre as LCD Soundsystem and MGMT and The Faint and Bodyrockers and Holy Ghost! and Gorillaz and Electric Six and Cut Copy and Wolfmother and The Killers and Franz Ferdinand and Foster the People.

They are such an integral part of dance culture the last few years that everything you posted after these two words is a big steaming pile of concentrated fail.

They are powered almost completely by their remixes, which are caned so much in the clubs that I bet you aren't even aware how much dancepunk you've actually heard. The indie/hipster scene is completely dominated by this shit.

Who doesn't call Animal Collective electronic music these days? I've got a Mixmag CD with them on, Sasha opened sets with them. I wouldn't call them "dancepunk", but they're definitely electronic music right now, although they'll probably talk a left turn into something completely differen with their next album.

___________________
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 Ishkur Is dancepunk, same genre as LCD Soundsystem and MGMT and The Faint and Bodyrockers and Holy Ghost! and Gorillaz and Electric Six and Cut Copy and Wolfmother and The Killers and Franz Ferdinand and Foster the People. They are such an integral part of dance culture the last few years that everything you posted after these two words is a big steaming pile of concentrated fail. They are powered almost completely by their remixes, which are caned so much in the clubs that I bet you aren't even aware how much dancepunk you've actually heard. The indie/hipster scene is completely dominated by this shit.

You don't know much about Animal Collective, do you? Dancepunk?! Now that's a fail if I ever seen one. As someone who heard a little more of them than My Girls, I can assure you that their material very rarely transcends into the dance territory, and that they are in essence a rock band (drums, guitar, keys, sampling -> line-up the last two times I've seen them live) that uses electronics to intensify certain elements of their music (mainly psychedelic aspect). There's a reason why almost all respectable reviewers/RYM/Last.fm/fans call them experimental/neo-psychedelic indie pop (I'm not a fan of neither label) - because they supplement their pop/rock arrangements with electronics, not the other way around. Yeah, their last album had a couple of dancey bouncey songs, but they are certainly not the sign of their style - which will be evident with their next album. So you can call them dancepunk as much as you want, but you'll certainly be in a tiny minority.

And about them being powered by their remixes - yeah, maybe in a dance scene which is completely deatached from them. Most people who listen to them don't even care for that remixes. Please tell me one remix that can measure up to their original stuff. And btw, every mainstream act these days gets remixed to death by dance acts and they are certainly not an exception.

And we are not discussing dance culture here, so please abstain from mentioning Franz Ferdinand and likes.

quote:

Originally posted by sljiva they are in essence a rock band (drums, guitar, keys, sampling -> line-up the last two times I've seen them live) that uses electronics to intensify certain elements of their music (mainly psychedelic aspect).

That's what dancepunk is.

Yeah, listen to this dancepunk shit right here:
dancepunk #1
dancepunk #2
dancepunk #3
dancepunk #4
dancepunk #5
dancepunk #6

I danced my ass off to these tunes. And that's just from their latest album. So to call a band that can't even collect 50% dancey songs on their danceist album to date dancepunk is pretty stupid and downright wrong if you ask me. And that's the reason why no one does it - except you.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur I always use this as the ultimate qualifier: If you have to plug it in to make music with it, it's electronic.

In that case every music that is released nowadays is electronic.

They have plug something in even when recording acoustic instruments nowadays.

Unless they only play live. :P

quote:

Originally posted by Psynon In that case every music that is released nowadays is electronic.

Or to be more accurate - dancepunk!

quote:

Originally posted by sljiva Yeah, listen to this dancepunk shit right here:

you
are
a
fucking
dumbass

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I can't decide whether this thread is touching on very deep considerations of the mechanics of what we collectively term "electronic music" and how and why it is set apart from music that happens to be made electronically... OR if the poster is a complete cretin.

i think both, or a sophisticated and bored alt.

this is like electronic music existentialism.

its actually an interesting thread. i'm always interested in hearing what my punk and hip hop friends definition of 'electronic music' is. to some of my friends coming from hardcore and indie rock backgrounds, 'dancepunk', 'coldwave', all that stuff, is simply 'electronic music'.

i think the idea of 'identity' in music is pretty fascinating. it's definitely something i have been interested in for a long time and played around with a bit in my mixes.

i mean, when we say 'electronic music' we (mostly) know what we're talking about, even though, as someone said, lots of music is technically electronic music these days - some rock producers even replace electric guitars with electronically generated guitar tracks.

we definitely live in a post-electronic music world, where the concept is about as fresh, liberating, and futuristic as 'modernism' now is in architecture.

i don't think the question of identity has anything to do with electronics anymore. and i'm not sure that it ever really did - if you consider the origins of electronic music, it basically came organically out of all kinds of different music - post-punk/no wave, pop, prog and psych rock, avant classical, funk, disco.

that said, people still want to choose (and marketing directors still want to choose) what is and isn't 'electronic music' for various reasons. what is it about the term that makes people want it or don't want it?

i believe that most other musics fetishize other aspects rather than the technical production, whereas what we identify as 'electronic music' fetishizes only the technical production of the music. punk fetishizes the anti-establishment stance, rock fetishizes the show, the concert, the virtuosity of instrumental performance, hip hop fetishizes experience and the language.... what does 'electronic music' have? only the way it was made, or the complete mystery about the way it was made.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur you are a fucking dumbass

OMG listen to this deeply textured ambient music. I like this ambient artist Johnny Cash.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec i believe that most other musics fetishize other aspects rather than the technical production, whereas what we identify as 'electronic music' fetishizes only the technical production of the music. punk fetishizes the anti-establishment stance, rock fetishizes the show, the concert, the virtuosity of instrumental performance, hip hop fetishizes experience and the language.... what does 'electronic music' have?

The drugs.