|
Jack Moss - Catharsis [Drum & Bass] (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
The people who use those kind of references were never into prog in the first place - it's about as relevant to them as trance. So it's incorrect to state that everyone is glossing over the influence of prog. To some people, it almost never existed in the first place.
And as for music critics neglecting to mention the influence of prog, what relevance does it have, unless they're actually talking about a prog record? As you said, it's not a particularly popular genre at the moment, so there's hardly anyone covering it. |
I'm pretty sure places like Resident Advisor and Mixmag used to cover prog, mate. I'm also pretty sure it's relevant to put more than about three prog records in your Singles Of the Decade list. And as nefardec has rightly said, modern tech-house is just dark prog by any other name, and all these guys claiming they grew up on Herbie Hanrecords were actually getting their cherries popped on the Delta Heavy tour. Hell, one of the reasons nefardec doth protest so much against prog is because he was spinning it just a couple of years back, and no matter how hard he scrubs he just can't get it out from under his fingernails.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Barin this in mind, I had never heard the term "tech-step" as a form of D&B until this thread.
not that I doubt it's existence as a label, but I have the very strong belief based off experience and academic interest in EDM as a whole, that this term has been adopted after the fact for journalists to be able to lay hooks in to sub genres (as often happens but has no real baring in the music or scene itself, especially while it was current).
I would be surprised if any of my mates who worked in the industry at the time had either. I think what i'm rtying to say is that even though your analysis is well argued, it is stained by a certain after the fact skew particularly influenced by journalists trying to recount something they did not understand of experience first hand, and therefore use terms that are meaningless to those that were or as
a accurate historical reference. |
Tech-step was coined by Ed Rush and Trace in 1996. Here's a mix of the style from 1997 by Blu Mar Ten: http://www.blumarten.com/home/from-...hstep-mix-1997/. Here's an article from the same year that uses the term: http://www.thewire.co.uk/articles/2030/. I recommend reading the full Hardcore Continuum series of articles on that site for a contemporary and in-depth account of the history I've just summarised briefly in this thread. Should be sufficient anecdotal account in there to convince you Reynolds was there and did see it happening (he was also the guy who coined the term "neurofunk", in case you want to accuse him of being some irrelevant journalist nobody cared about). You can also find multiple uses of the term in Reynolds' book Energy Flash (1997), Pete Shapiro's Drum 'n Bass: A Rough Guide (1999) and Rave Culture: An Insider's Overview (1999) by Jimi Fritz, to name but a couple.
And I guess you stopped following drum 'n bass a long time ago, because I've been hearing and seeing "tech-step" for the last ten years. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm pretty sure places like Resident Advisor and Mixmag used to cover prog, mate. I'm also pretty sure it's relevant to put more than about three prog records in your Singles Of the Decade list. And as nefardec has rightly said, modern tech-house is just dark prog by any other name, and all these guys claiming they grew up on Herbie Hanrecords were actually getting their cherries popped on the Delta Heavy tour. Hell, one of the reasons nefardec doth protest so much against prog is because he was spinning it just a couple of years back, and no matter how hard he scrubs he just can't get it out from under his fingernails. |
Resident Advisor was indeed covering prog when they first started in Sydney last decade. Thus, I partially agree with you about the end of decade lists. However, two things:
Places like RA and Pitchfork's "opinions" aren't controlled by some central figure; they're that of the numerous and changing roster of writers themselves, which means that any drastic change in opinion isn't a deliberate move. Rather, it's a shift in the popularity of certain styles. So the writers that were around in 2002 (when prog was big) had probably been replaced multiple times after it fell from grace. Therefore, the people compiling the list were only doing what they knew, not conveniently "forgetting" their pasts.
Apart from compiling end of decade lists, you still haven't provided me with any reason why journalists would mention prog. Unlike other genres like garage, it hasn't had had a great lasting legacy. So it's not some cover-up or sudden "uncoolness" that has prevented it from getting mentions. Rather, it's irrelevance, as I said before.
And while I haven't experienced it myself, I believe you that prog has a bad reputation these days. What I have a harder time understanding is why. Like techno, it's not a particularly easy genre to corrupt - it's deep and pretty tough to commercialise. You seem to think this reputation comes from the backlash against superclubs, which is perhaps why I've never encountered it before, what with being Australian and all. In my view, it's not necessarily uncool the way trance is, just unpopular. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Apart from compiling end of decade lists, you still haven't provided me with any reason why journalists would mention prog. Unlike other genres like garage, it hasn't had had a great lasting legacy. So it's not some cover-up or sudden "uncoolness" that has prevented it from getting mentions. Rather, it's irrelevance, as I said before. |
Because it's still being released? It's not like RA or Pitchfork or the rest of the blogosphere are driven by popularity when it comes to what they cover, otherwise they'd be constantly covering electro house from the Beatport charts. They are taste-makers, with the power to get people interested in releases. So why not cover prog? Why would it suddenly be so pointedly irrelevant, when most of today's producers actually cut their teeth on it? Why is everyone deliberately trying to sound like 80s house and techno and making stupid album titles about Chicago and Detroit? I seem to remember guys like Shlomi Aber were making prog not too long ago. If you think prog hasn't influenced the modern tech house scene, you're buying into the blackout. And then, even if we set all that aside, how does that explain the tendency to drop in barbs about it? I remember Mixmag opening their review of Portishead's last album about how in the mid-90s DJs like Sasha were charging exhorbitant fees.
Also, I just think you have no idea what you're talking about if you think garage has had no lasting influence. Future garage is so ubiquitous right now I read the term in a broadsheet newspaper last weekend. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Also, I just think you have no idea what you're talking about if you think garage has had no lasting influence. Future garage is so ubiquitous right now I read the term in a broadsheet newspaper last weekend. |
Let me quote myself from before and replace "it" with "prog".
"Unlike other genres like garage, [prog] hasn't had had a great lasting legacy."
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Because it's still being released? It's not like RA or Pitchfork or the rest of the blogosphere are driven by popularity when it comes to what they cover, otherwise they'd be constantly covering electro house from the Beatport charts. |
That's what's commercially popular, which is a completely different thing to what the websites in question cover.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
They are taste-makers, with the power to get people interested in releases. So why not cover prog? Why would it suddenly be so pointedly irrelevant, when most of today's producers actually cut their teeth on it? |
As we've agreed, prog isn't popular. Do you think that the journalists at RA et al are any different to anyone else? They still follow trends. However, your point seems to be that they should make it popular. The problem is that there isn't a lot of good prog being released. It's actually the artists who control what's popular, not the journalists. A particular sound gets big when one artist makes a record that blows up, and the others emulate him/her.
Also, I'd like you to clarify what you mean when you say "most of of today's producers". Who are you referring to with that statement? Though I still want to hear who you have in mind, I think you're wrong. While prog was a strong current, techno has always run alongside it, and there are many people who stuck to that stream.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Why is everyone deliberately trying to sound like 80s house and techno and making stupid album titles about Chicago and Detroit? I seem to remember guys like Shlomi Aber were making prog not too long ago. |
Yes, I remember a track of his called Bagpipe which was amazing. I was pretty upset when he switched to his current style. He's just one guy though, I don't think that's a widespread thing.
Two things: this trend of mentioning Chicago and Detroit isn't a trend. It's being going on a forever without you noticing. However, perhaps it has got slightly more ludicrous of late. While your grounding in prog history is very strong, I don't feel you have a solid background in techno.
Secondly, even if this 'trend' had blown up out of nowhere, it's not a conscious decision on behalf of the masses to discredit progressive (which is the crux of this discussion). It's merely what's in at the moment. You know as well as anyone that electronic music is highly susceptible to cyclical phases, and that people will jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling by.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
If you think prog hasn't influenced the modern tech house scene, you're buying into the blackout. |
Tech-house has been around for a while now, and it's only the past couple of years that this influence has crept in. To me, they're completely different things though. Progressive was and is characterised by strong basslines and great subtlety; two things which tech-house lacks badly.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And then, even if we set all that aside, how does that explain the tendency to drop in barbs about it? I remember Mixmag opening their review of Portishead's last album about how in the mid-90s DJs like Sasha were charging exhorbitant fees. |
I can't comment on that, not having read it. However, that sounds like an attack on superstar DJs more than the music itself. As you also know, Sasha and the other prog DJs were the first to demand huge fees - it's likely a backlash would have occurred, regardless of what genre they were playing. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Sorry, misread the sentence about garage. I'm very tired today.
I will answer your other points later. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Sorry, misread the sentence about garage. I'm very tired today.
I will answer your other points later. |
And I'm drunk. Look forward to continuing tomorrow. :haha:
I forgot to mention that the big websites are limited by which promos they receive. Their writers generally don't source the music they write about. Thus, if a particular site has a reputation for being a techno-oriented website, they won't get many prog releases sent to them. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm pretty sure places like Resident Advisor and Mixmag used to cover prog, mate. I'm also pretty sure it's relevant to put more than about three prog records in your Singles Of the Decade list. And as nefardec has rightly said, modern tech-house is just dark prog by any other name, and all these guys claiming they grew up on Herbie Hanrecords were actually getting their cherries popped on the Delta Heavy tour. Hell, one of the reasons nefardec doth protest so much against prog is because he was spinning it just a couple of years back, and no matter how hard he scrubs he just can't get it out from under his fingernails.
|
I think I (sadly) actually have the mixmag issue where they claim to coin the term progressive house, so yes, it was widely covered and used, if not domintaed certain publications for a while.
The reason for the prog backlash was that acts like pole folder and peace division were eventually putting out records that were nothing more than minimal percussion loops and boring as .
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Tech-step was coined by Ed Rush and Trace in 1996. Here's a mix of the style from 1997 by Blu Mar Ten: http://www.blumarten.com/home/from-...hstep-mix-1997/. Here's an article from the same year that uses the term: http://www.thewire.co.uk/articles/2030/. I recommend reading the full Hardcore Continuum series of articles on that site for a contemporary and in-depth account of the history I've just summarised briefly in this thread. Should be sufficient anecdotal account in there to convince you Reynolds was there and did see it happening (he was also the guy who coined the term "neurofunk", in case you want to accuse him of being some irrelevant journalist nobody cared about). You can also find multiple uses of the term in Reynolds' book Energy Flash (1997), Pete Shapiro's Drum 'n Bass: A Rough Guide (1999) and Rave Culture: An Insider's Overview (1999) by Jimi Fritz, to name but a couple.
And I guess you stopped following drum 'n bass a long time ago, because I've been hearing and seeing "tech-step" for the last ten years. |
Ugh. That article from the wire is EXACTLY the type of "journalism" I'm talking about. Obsessed with discussing micro genres, coined by people who have a vested interest in either separating or labeling something and the only people who give a are navel gazing obsessives of such trivia.
You have to realise that both the likes of RA and mixmag (and many in between) have always had a massive financial and popularist interest in not just covering these meaningless terms (in the grand scheme of things they are mere flashes in kitchen filled with pans) but promoting them (from artist/label/club/merchandise/etc revenue associated with these "new" things).
The proof is that as someone who follows dance music quite intensely, from London but does not reside there (instead in a larger more populated city which has a thriving EDM club scene), "future garage" means about as much to me cheryl cole does to the average American (does not even exist). Outside the niche environment where these things seem important, they don't even register.
I think what i'm trying to get across is that the moment you step outside of the bubble of genre micro definition, you realise that the whole thing is self serving and quite utterly meaningless beyond the main definitions EDM.
It may be because I've been around a while, long enough to know that things come and go in cycles, and all forms of EDM can basically be divided to in just a few genres, that I just don't take any of this micro definitions seriously.
I do find it interesting and I am quite grateful you open my eyes to this sort of EDM sub culture. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I think I (sadly) actually have the mixmag issue where they claim to coin the term progressive house, so yes, it was widely covered and used, if not domintaed certain publications for a while.
The reason for the prog backlash was that acts like pole folder and peace division were eventually putting out records that were nothing more than minimal percussion loops and boring as . |
You mean this article? http://www.djhistory.com/features/trance-mission-1992
I think your argument that prog stopped being popular because it descended into "boring as minimal percussion loops" would have more credence if the style that usurped it hadn't been... minimal techno.
| quote: | | The proof is that as someone who follows dance music quite intensely, from London but does not reside there (instead in a larger more populated city which has a thriving EDM club scene), "future garage" means about as much to me cheryl cole does to the average American (does not even exist). Outside the niche environment where these things seem important, they don't even register. |
I don't think The Guardian is a "niche environment". I wouldn't expect someone living in LA to be as up to speed on the vicissitudes of UK bass music as me, but I don't think that quite explains it. You don't have to go too far to see the term "future garage" either. Adam Solomon posted a mix of it not too long ago in this section of TA. There's no way you can be up on dubstep and not know the term. I think you just don't follow dance music as intensely as you think.
Similarly, go into a record shop specialising in drum 'n bass and you'll see "tech-step" as a category. Likewise if you go on Beatport, Chemical Records, HTFR etc. My junglist friends who originally taught me the difference between jungle and dnb used the term freely. It's been on Ishkur's guide for almost 10 years. It isn't just a journalist term. People in the scene used it, and have used it widely for years. And the ideological conflict I described earlier between atmospheric and tech-step isn't just a journalistic fabrication either. I've seen that debate rage and I've taken flack for liking Bukem and GLR. I wouldn't just regurgitate the word of journalists. I know that separation exists even in the scene today.
EDIT: , I wrote a big reply out for Domesticated but lost it when I copy-pasted that ing Mixmag article. I guess you'll have to wait until tomorrow, because I'm too tired to do it again. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Right, to answer Domesticated's points. I'm not going into slicing this argument up into a bunch of individual points, because the discussion rapidly loses focus and dissolves into point-scoring debating of increasingly inconsequential tangents.
Firstly I think it's begging the question to flatly state "Artists control what is popular", and somewhat baffling that you seem to think tracks or sounds "blow up" without any influence from the press or media. Journalists wouldn't exist, get sent promos or derive any income from record labels if they had no influence on creating and sustaining hype. That's increasingly true now print sales are so low and sites like RA and Pitchfork derive their income primarily from labels paying them for advertising and/or coverage. It's well documented that RA pulled and replaced a negative review after a record label threatened to withdraw advertising revenues, leading to several editors quitting the site.
Secondly, even setting aside the influence of journalists, I think you're either misunderstanding or misconstruing me, because I'm not claiming the revisionism is the sole invention of journalists. I use journalistic examples precisely because they represent trends of the moment. It's not like journalists are autonomous from the rest of the scene. I think there were plenty of artists who saw the way dance music was flagging around 2004 and consciously distanced themselves from it. I think there were an equally large number of producers who saw an opportunity to promote their own genres as an alternative. There was a vested interest for everyone in the dance music scene, from club owners to producers to journalists, to drastically reinvent the image of the scene. It's the culture that had reached the end of its shelf-life, and my point is that prog was made a symbol of that culture.
Finally, about tech house. You say nobody's covering prog because there isn't much good prog around. Compared to the wealth of quality in which genre, exactly? I don't see any reason to believe the -ratio in progressive is higher or lower than any other genre. It's impossible to measure anyway, so you cannot build an argument around it. And then you say tech house has been around for ages, and I just haven't noticed the Detroit and Chicago name-dropping. Thanks, but I don't have tunnel vision. The point is that modern tech-house has little or nothing to with what used to be called tech house, and very little to do with real techno either. I don't want to start another debate on the definition of progressive. Last time we did that you told me it was all about "progressive structure" and claimed Acid Eiffel was a prog record. For me it's very obvious that '00s tech-house has a strong influence from '00s prog, and everyone's only tight-lipped about it because it isn't cool to admit it. The whole point is that these white Europeans who don't have to do with Chicago or Detroit are basically making white-noise, pared down prog and trying to impart coolness and credibility on it by dropping excessive references to 1980s lore.
That's another key ideological difference which is a factor in prog's decline: progressive, and the '90s in general, were very much futurist. The '00s, and '00s dance music, were most definitely not futurist. Once we got post-millenial and everyone was online, the future-buzz of the 90s dance scene stopped being cool, and so futuristic music also started to flag in popularity. That's a broader social phenomenon that doesn't necessarily revolve around greedy promoters and posing DJ wankers. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Just thought I'd give this one a bump, because I've got something new in the pipeline so I'll squeeze any remaining interest out of this one. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
It opened with some rather heavy ambient tracks that didn't offer much to hold on to for an introduction. It makes for a nice way to mix into the broken beats but i can sort of imagine that people would have gotten the point if it were a few minutes shorter as well.
That said, it was more an attempt at an objective viewpoint by me. As i'm really not bothered by those few extra minutes as long as it's all good music. Which it is.
Same goes for the rest really. It's an interesting sound, as it offers the good atmosphere and melody making that i'd associate with progressive music, yet it's also rather groovy and energetic. A good mix. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Nah, I totally understand the point about the intro. Just about everyone has mentioned it, and when I listen to the mix now I agree. The two tracks alone don't bore me because I like ambient music, but relative to how quickly the rest of the mix moves, 12 minutes for an intro is proportionally too long.
Glad you enjoyed it, anyway. |
|
|
|
|
