|
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
I think that, what is refered as "tech-house" today is not the same as to what was refered as "tech-house" a few years back. I mean go to beatport and half of the releases are called "Tech-house". Today, if a house tune has a bleep or some mechanical sound it automatically becomes "Tech". It maybe is. Genres are very relative and with all this "minimal", "electro" and whatever else there is out there, sometimes it is difficult to diferrentiate. i remember though, that,in 2002, for example many of the artists that made "tech-house", were also categorized as "deep-house" as well. Jay Tripwire, Eddie Richards, the stuff Terry Francis played, The F-Communication label, Alexi Delano, Circulation, The Timewriter, Harris, Gideon Jackson and many others actually used to make-and play- both.
In reality,the "deep/tech house" coming from the end of 90s and first quarter of 00s was nothing more than house music inspired by the original Chicago house and Detroit techno of the 80s and 90s, albeit-with modern production techniques. Both used deep off-chords, heavy low-end, tribal and funky drums, pianos, the characteristic detroit strings, stabs of distorted and echoed soulfull vocals etc...From that point of view, both "Genres" were quantitavily and not qualitatively different. As a result, deep house represented the more chilled, groovy and full sound appropriate for lounge-bars, whereas tech-house represented the more up-beat, fast and stripped-down version of this sound suitable for small, dark, sweaty clubs. That of course doesn't mean that "Deep" and "tech-house" artists were always the one and the same, but in many cases were.
Genre names are made by people though and music itself evolves very fast (between genre-diffusion). Hence, in the same way that trance today has nothing to do with the 93 trance, today's (or tomorrows) "tech-house" may have nothing to do with the older (deep/)"Tech-house" sound. |
Good post. I think I get it a little bit more now. Although I think I came across the wrong way in this thread. I'm not overly strict in my genre labeling, but sometimes it's good to have a few labels to describe certain songs, so people have a sense of what to expect or imagine if they've never heard that song before, especially the ones that fit in those gray areas. If a guy was telling me how good of a track so and so was and I asked him to describe it and the bloke just told me it sounds like music, he would come off to me as a sarcastic ass and I'd probably never talk to him again.
Nor was I planning on using this info for "pointless arguing," rather, so I can be better knowledgeable of these different styles of music and become involved in its discussion, next time it's brought up. Plus I just have a natural curiosity for history in general, regardless of the subject.
|
