|
Is Deep House really Tech House? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
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. |
very good post, but i want to point out some people who are still making deeper tech house more like it used to sound
rene breitbarth
some efdemin (eg parts of andreas heiszenberger - perfect moment (efdemin's cremant de cramant mix)
microstar (eg 'african nights', 'envelopes' 'free fall'
quarion (eg 'take no shorts',
dublee (eg 'twin (classic mix)
redshape
dave ellesmere
some pablo bolivar
00Mensula00
two armadillos - butterfly bee (andomat 3000 & Jan iwanitz remix)
dirt crew - manoeuvers
terrace - moods
move d
kevin yost - hypnotic progressions
maybe something like danny tenaglia - bottom heavy is a good example of older tech house
deep house for me is more like
echomen - thru 2 you (charles webster dub)
kuniyuki - precious hall
quince - vitjazzdepth
sascha dive - long way\deep in rhythm
0. Gonzales & J Lago
jori hulkkonen
jay tripwire - (most anything)
laid - punch up (frankie feliciano re edit)
kids in the streets - keep on turnin (motorcitysoul vocal dub)
manoo
kevin yost
...a good deal of these will be appearing in my next (2 hour) promo. as soon as i can get some time off of work and what not to finish burning tracks and record the thing i will post it
basically i really am into this sort of 'crossoverlap' between deep house, tech house, dub techno, and detroit techno, and ambient music |
|
|
| Zharen |
| 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. |
|
|
| ToxicGreenWaste |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
If you answer that question with "Tech House" or "Deep House" or "Techno" or "House" or just about any other genre, a hundred people are going to have a hundred different interpretations of what exactly your response meant. |
Then 99 of those people have poorly educated themselves. Or all of them, if none of them are right. |
|
|
| Redd |
| quote: | Originally posted by ToxicGreenWaste
Then 99 of those people have poorly educated themselves. Or all of them, if none of them are right. |
That sounds about right, since about 90% of all people are indeed poorly educated to music, and the remaining 9% are just as confused by genre-definitions as a lot of us are ;) |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ToxicGreenWaste
Then 99 of those people have poorly educated themselves. Or all of them, if none of them are right. |
So what you're arguing is that genres have strict definitions that anyone (if they so choose) can figure out definitively and then proceed to teach others exactly what "deep house" or "tech house" is?
Yup. I bet that's exactly how it is. 
...
:stongue: |
|
|
| Alex |
From the people I talk to on a day to day basis about music, I would say roughly 1% of them actually can define genres in a good enough way for me to know wtf they are talking about.
And to me, that's what genres are "good" for. Giving people a general "wording" to describe something to someone else so that they can both be on the same page while talking about it.
People that say stuff like this:
"It's deep-techy-proggy-rumbly-dysfunctional-catastrophic-mnmlz-core"
Are idiots and should generalize a bit more.
And not because I think music NEEDS defining of genres, just so we all know what people are on about (sort of). |
|
|
| Stanza |
| Dunno about all this categorisation but I always group Terry Lee Brown Jr. and The Timewriter and most of the stuff off the Plastic City label to be deep/tech house. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stanza
Dunno about all this categorisation but I always group Terry Lee Brown Jr. and The Timewriter and most of the stuff off the Plastic City label to be deep/tech house. |
Yes man! Its this stuff indeed. |
|
|
| LionsLair |
To simplify Tech House you could describe it as House music that uses techy or computer age sounds 1985+. House is more organic, using instruments we've had for the past few centuries: pianos, trumpets, ethnic percussions, organs, saxaphones, strings, etc. Tech House is replacing those instruments with the sharper and darker techy sounds from the new age of instruments like synths and computer generated SAW SIN SQUARE Triangle sounds. Deep House in many ways is almost the opposite of Tech House. It has warmer tones, the sounds can get sublime and underwater or backroom feeling versus sharper frequencies of Tech House. The prominent Deep House sounds are usually in the in the 300hz-1.5Khz range in frequency which feel muted/moody/warm compared to the prominent Tech HOuse sound frequencies in the 1k-18k range. Having said that there are many tracks that share ideas between the genres.
OT:...a great way to maxamize enjoyment of Joris Voorn's 'A Deep Place' album is to listen to Burial's 'Untrue' album first. Both great albums that you will appreciate more if you hear them together within a short timeframe. |
|
|
|
|
