|
Someone please define "techno" for me.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ RJT |
People (DJ's, TA's, EDM whores in general) seem to describe "techno" music in drastically different terms.
I don't get it. What is "techno?"  |
|
|
| The Master |
| Unfortunately no one can be told what "Techno" is, you have to hear it for yourself :cool: |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
One of the oldest contempory dance music genres. Created in Detroit in the early 1980s. Evolved from electro. It's now a very wide and varied tree of sub-genres, just like house. Techno is generally described as cold, rhythmic and inhuman, with lots of obviously artificial sounds, lots of percussion and little melody. Despite that, there is a lot of melodic techno and soft techno. Some techno sounds a lot like classic trance (which originally came from German techno) and some sounds a lot like the less funky house genres. It can be four on the floor or breakbeat and some breakbeat techno can sound a lot like hip-hop derived breaks.
As with all genres, the best way to know something is techno is to listen to a lot of techno and you'll pick up on the general feel of it which words can't describe. |
|
|
| DJ RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
oon-tish |
Oddly enough Nik, I think that's probably the best definition anyone has given me yet. :)
Right on - I always like a good read about music, but I guess my question was a bit more ambiguous than I had intended.
I hear people who claim to be "techno" DJ's who spin the kind of techy/minimal "slow" techno, and then other DJ's who spin bangin', 140+ BPM "techno," and neither side seems to agree that the other is actual "techno."
I don't know if that makes any sense what-so-ever, I guess I just found it odd that "techno" music could differ so much in the eye of the beholder... It's not necessarily something I've experienced with Trance DJ's, House DJ's, etc.
Edit:
@ SYSTEM-J: Odds are that's the one I'm going to have to go with... Thanks m8. |
|
|
| washout |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
As with all genres, the best way to know something is techno is to listen to a lot of techno and you'll pick up on the general feel of it which words can't describe. |
i agree 100%.
and which becomes the source of most debate in here. |
|
|
| Protege |
| The Adam Beyer type stuff is techno to me. Basically more repetitive than house/tech house and maybe a little harder. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| Early on, the term "techno" was used in the same manner as we would use "EDM" today, which might explain the dilemma that arises when a genre encompasses everything from Marc Acardipane to Basic Channel. |
|
|
| DJ RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Early on, the term "techno" was used in the same manner as we would use "EDM" today, which might explain the dilemma that arises when a genre encompasses everything from Marc Acardipane to Basic Channel. |
Exactly.
The problems that arrise for me come from when DJ's or Producers label themselves as "Techno" DJ's/producers. It's essentially become a meaningless term to me, as whenever I read about someone's new "techno" mix or track it could mean anything from Minimal or Tech House to bangin' Tech Trance.
It just confuses me. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RJT
Exactly.
The problems that arrise for me come from when DJ's or Producers label themselves as "Techno" DJ's/producers. It's essentially become a meaningless term to me, as whenever I read about someone's new "techno" mix or track it could mean anything from Minimal or Tech House to bangin' Tech Trance.
It just confuses me. |
You can easily say the same about the recent "electro" trend. Or for that matter, the problem that was around 4-5 years ago, when techno automatically meant banging out 20-30 loop/tool techno tracks in an hour. Today, the problem is the same, only the loop/tool techno tracks are replaced by "minimal". And "minimal" (a la Gabriel Ananda or Dominik Eulberg) has close to nothing in common with the original idea of minimal shaped by people like Robert Hood etc. etc.
It's an endless list of dilemmas really, but as long as you listen to enough and get that "feel" of things, you'll realize how to keep track of things after a while. |
|
|
| DJ RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
You can easily say the same about the recent "electro" trend. Or for that matter, the problem that was around 4-5 years ago, when techno automatically meant banging out 20-30 loop/tool techno tracks in an hour. Today, the problem is the same, only the loop/tool techno tracks are replaced by "minimal". And "minimal" (a la Gabriel Ananda or Dominik Eulberg) has close to nothing in common with the original idea of minimal shaped by people like Robert Hood etc. etc.
It's an endless list of dilemmas really, but as long as you listen to enough and get that "feel" of things, you'll realize how to keep track of things after a while. |
You make a great point, because honestly, if I tell a lot of people I play "house" music, and then they hear me play, I'll get all sorts of responses that run the gamut of:
"This isn't House! It's Techno (or minimal)!"
to
"This isn't House! It's Trance!"
I guess because I have my own set definitions of what "house," "trance," "electro," etc. are to me, I don't see the dilemmas as readily, but with the word "Techno" I just immediately feel lost.
It's rare when a thread on TA actually makes me think about the music in a different way, thanks for the well thought out responses Leaper!
:) |
|
|
|
|
