1.- Kraftwerk
2.- Leftfield
3.- The Prodigy/Pendulum
4.- Todd Terry
5.- Paul Oakenfold
6.- Tiësto
7.- Underworld
8.- Sven Vath
9.- Sasha
10.-Chris Reece
11.-Ben Liebrand
12.-Paul van Dyk
13.-Richie Hawtin
14.-Armin van Buuren/David Guetta
15.-Skrillex

The last 2 are just some obvious things, we are not talking about good influence but simply "influence" and this 3 have moved the market, in the case of Skrillex he popularized a genre that was underground.

The rest are on the list for different reasons, innovation, inspiration, mass icons...

quote:

Originally posted by Rodri Santos 15. Skrillex

a) Skrillex didn't even singlehandedly popularize Brostep. Caspa & Rusko already had made Brostep fucking popular years before this guy even released his first EP. and b) unlike most other artists on the list, Skrillex (as a EDM artist) has been barely around for 2 years, while everyone else has been influential for at least 10-15 years. Same thing goes for Guetta who's been around for aeons but only really has reached mass appeal in the last 2 years.

___________________
June 2018 mix

well Skrillex has a grammy , achieveing one and positioning where he is in 2 years is quite a feat, he brought it up to the mainstream more than Magnetic man Caspa or Rusko.

quote:

Originally posted by Woony a) Skrillex didn't even singlehandedly popularize Brostep. Caspa & Rusko already had made Brostep fucking popular years before this guy even released his first EP. and b) unlike most other artists on the list, Skrillex (as a EDM artist) has been barely around for 2 years, while everyone else has been influential for at least 10-15 years. Same thing goes for Guetta who's been around for aeons but only really has reached mass appeal in the last 2 years.

Yep, all Skrillex really did is package the brostep sound in bright twinkly melodies for mass consumption.

Last edited by djnitride on Jul-07-2012 at 16:31

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Realistically, there are two ways to quantify "influence". You either go on the names that have actually got the most people into dance music and inspired them to make music themselves (which becomes a list dominated by people like The Prodigy and Daft Punk) or you go on the innovators, without whom none of the others would have happened. The second method is the most informative, and it would be a run-down of primordial pioneers like Kraftwerk, King Tubby, Eno, Morodor, Klaus Schulz and then onto '80s figureheads: NYC's breakbeat protagonists Grandmaster Flash, Kool Herc and Afrika Bambaataa (without whom you can kiss hardcore, drum 'n bass, big beat and trip-hop goodbye), the Belleville Trio, Chicago's house heroes (Frankie Knuckles, Ron Hardy, Marshall Jefferson etc.), DJ Afredo (without whom Oakie, Rampling, Holloway and the rest would never have brought Ibizan club culture back to the UK and there'd be no acid house explosion and no rave scene)... and then if you've got any space left you might just be able to move onto the first acts of the '90s, the likes of The KLF, Aphex Twin and Hawtin.

Very hard to argue with this P.O.V.... for reference, MixMag and a few others have tried this before.

What I am interested in throughout this discussion is why so many people are making a point that the word 'electronic' should be inserted into their descriptions of dance music.

As opposed to what? Are there kinds of dance music that are not created electronically?
(were they not all recorded that way, on multitrack tapes and audio workstations and played back electronically as well?)

Is this an allusion to the use of synthesizers and sequencers versus people actually playing real instruments? And if so, where does the demarcation line stand. What is the difference between someone really playing a hardware synth and a piano by hand? And where does that put sampling of acoustic recordings that are reprocessed?

All I am trying to express is that I personally find that drawing this artificial line in the sand is a tad disingenuous for most artists as what they use is usually a hybrid of all of the above, unless we are talking about people who specifically only use sequencers and tone generators/modules or plug-ins and refuse to incorporate acoustic instruments, vocals and samples into what they do. (yes, they do exist)

The other item I find interesting is that predictably most people will look at those who fit the description and that belong to their age group, but never much beyond that...

___________________
My goal is to be one with the music. I just dedicate my whole life to this art.

quote:

Originally posted by sg_57 As opposed to what? Are there kinds of dance music that are not created electronically?

Yep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhSLKQeltrY

quote:

(were they not all recorded that way, on multitrack tapes and audio workstations and played back electronically as well?)

Sure, but I don't think such a broad use of "electronic music" is very common. I guess if you want we could dub any music ever recorded or assisted with electronic means in any way as "electronic music," even up to the point of including acoustic performances recorded in one take, but I think that stretches the label past the point of usefulness.

Honestly the dividing line here in this thread, as far as "electronic" goes, seems to come down to just live-played drums versus drum machines. Not saying that's the best way to draw it, just an observation.

quote:

Originally posted by Vector A Honestly the dividing line here in this thread, as far as "electronic" goes, seems to come down to just live-played drums versus drum machines. Not saying that's the best way to draw it, just an observation.

Sometimes (as in this instance) asking these questions is a way to draw us out of our preconceived cultural complacencies, the things we take for granted but didn't even realize we were.

I am fairly certain that I do know the answer, and although your explanation certainly has a good bit of validity to it, (and past the fact that I could easily point out to some electronic records using live drums or clear samples of them) one might say that the answer could be far more complex and more likely to invoke socio-cultural factors rather than the mere instruments that were used in making the music.

One illustration of this would be that to many people, Hip-Hop is definitely not electronic dance music. Or Eminem saying that "Nobody listens to Techno" (from the point of view of his tribal allegiances) And so on... lots of baggage there. I think it's positive to at least acknowledge that it's there, even if most won't go near it.

Even if I am not answering this in absolutes, only trying to highlight that some of these terms could be looked at being somewhat vacuous and not necessarily helpful except for those who don't ever want to put those things into question, therefore arguably helping to perpetuate the cultural divides they represent.

___________________
My goal is to be one with the music. I just dedicate my whole life to this art.

quote:

Originally posted by sg_57 I am fairly certain that I do know the answer, and although your explanation certainly has a good bit of validity to it, (and past the fact that I could easily point out to some electronic records using live drums or clear samples of them) one might say that the answer could be far more complex and more likely to invoke socio-cultural factors rather than the mere instruments that were used in making the music. One illustration of this would be that to many people, Hip-Hop is definitely not electronic dance music. Or Eminem saying that "Nobody listens to Techno" (from the point of view of his tribal allegiances) And so on... lots of baggage there. I think it's positive to at least acknowledge that it's there, even if most won't go near it.

That's a great point. Why is hip hop deemed "not EDM" in many people's eyes? Or modern R&B? They're as synthetic as a lot of other dance music, and made to be danced to. We could point to stylistic differences: they often have a much slower tempo than genres like house or techno, for example. But I think you're right that it's mainly a cultural thing, though it's hard to say what exactly the content of this cultural "divide" is. We could bring race (uh oh!) into it, but I'm not sure how if that would take us all the way as an explanation, given the well-acknowledged roots of house and techno as black music.

Anyway, I'm glad you took this discussion in a new direction. You're definitely right that my "drum machine criterion" doesn't tell the whole story.

My list is still the best, even though there are a couple omissions. Fuck you Ishkur!

quote:

Originally posted by GeminiZ HERE'S MY TOP 10 INFLUENTIAL TRANCE ARTISTS OF ALL TIME. 1. AFROJACK 2. AVICII 3. SKRILLEX 4. STEVE ANGELLO 5. CEDRIC GERVAIS 6. KNIFE PARTY 7. TOMMY TRASH 8. LAIDBACK LUKE 9. LIL JON 10. STEVE AOKI WITHOUT THESE GUYS WE DEFINITELY WOULDN'T HAVE TRANCE PARTIES ANYMORE.

God, this for me. This all over my fucking face and down my esophagus.

quote:

Originally posted by Woony a) Skrillex didn't even singlehandedly popularize Brostep. Caspa & Rusko already had made Brostep fucking popular years before this guy even released his first EP. and b) unlike most other artists on the list, Skrillex (as a EDM artist) has been barely around for 2 years, while everyone else has been influential for at least 10-15 years. Same thing goes for Guetta who's been around for aeons but only really has reached mass appeal in the last 2 years.

I think the Guetta case can be argued, i remember him releasing a track i think back in 2007 or 2008, Love Is Gone?, shit goddamn, That was one annoying track. After the radio got tired of playing it, he was still very well known and sought out to play live for the masses, he was being booked everywhere. Then he made that stupid song with Akon, and that's when shit got out of control.

So his rise to so called Fame started about 5 years ago.

___________________
Ya dig where i'm comin' from baby?

quote:

Originally posted by Amduscias I think the Guetta case can be argued, i remember him releasing a track i think back in 2007 or 2008, Love Is Gone?, shit goddamn, That was one annoying track. After the radio got tired of playing it, he was still very well known and sought out to play live for the masses, he was being booked everywhere. Then he made that stupid song with Akon, and that's when shit got out of control. So his rise to so called Fame started about 5 years ago.

his rise to fame started around 2001-2002 and really took off with this massive piece of shit: http://www.discogs.com/David-Guetta...ix/master/91064

He was also part of the Africanism project (some of which is really good). His first ever release was on Island Records in the early 90's, which boasted some pretty big acts on the roster like LL Cool J, Bob Marley and the Wailers, U2 and so on... Personally i think the guy is a musical piece of shit, but he has been releasing on the big boys (Virgin also released a ton of his stuff way before 2007/2008.) of record labels since the beginning.

This is almost sounding like I'm defending him. Better drink my own piss.