|
who thinks techno is flat out better than house? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Mattinsanity |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
oh for s sake
this is what system j must feel like all the time |
set up an altar and pray to him |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mattinsanity
but techno has a distinct aura that makes the listener concentrate and introspect himself. house doesn't have that same aura. |
What? :stongue: |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mattinsanity
critics need to explain why intelligent music is associated with techno and not with house |
I wish I could remember the article I read that discussed how techno was the only self-consciously artistic genre of electronic dance music. I think it was in Last Night A DJ Saved My Life.
Basically, this is the one genre of dance music with obviously middle class as opposed to working class origins. The techno pioneers were educated and smart, and their music was a deliberate allegory for the urban decay and technological dystopia of 1980s Detroit. The early techno scene was not particularly druggy either. This was not escapist music for the working classes. Obviously things changed in the '90s with the very banging European sounds, but now the audience for electronic music has changed a lot, and with more and more people in the scene who aren't really into dancing and getting ed up (middle class hipsters, basically), techno's arty side is once again being emphasised.
I personally think a lot of this new, slower techno is actually pretty boring, and pretentious in a Mark Anthony way. It's no longer innovative or challenging, because the emphasis of cold machine music doesn't have any effect anymore, and the futurist manifesto is just a self-parody now, given how the genre is rife with retro self-referentialism and purism. It's just self-consciously "tasteful" dance music, it doesn't have the energy of genuine rave music nor can it free itself from the limited 4/4 paradigm of club music. Which is not to say I don't enjoy the moody and atmospheric techno that is put out these days, but I certainly don't think Sandwell District, Conforce or the other hyped trendster techno of 2011 is remotely "intelligent". |
|
|
| Chimney |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I wish I could remember the article I read that discussed how techno was the only self-consciously artistic genre of electronic dance music. I think it was in Last Night A DJ Saved My Life.
Basically, this is the one genre of dance music with obviously middle class as opposed to working class origins. The techno pioneers were educated and smart, and their music was a deliberate allegory for the urban decay and technological dystopia of 1980s Detroit. The early techno scene was not particularly druggy either. This was not escapist music for the working classes. Obviously things changed in the '90s with the very banging European sounds, but now the audience for electronic music has changed a lot, and with more and more people in the scene who aren't really into dancing and getting ed up (middle class hipsters, basically), techno's arty side is once again being emphasised.
I personally think a lot of this new, slower techno is actually pretty boring, and pretentious in a Mark Anthony way. It's no longer innovative or challenging, because the emphasis of cold machine music doesn't have any effect anymore, and the futurist manifesto is just a self-parody now, given how the genre is rife with retro self-referentialism and purism. It's just self-consciously "tasteful" dance music, it doesn't have the energy of genuine rave music nor can it free itself from the limited 4/4 paradigm of club music. Which is not to say I don't enjoy the moody and atmospheric techno that is put out these days, but I certainly don't think Sandwell District, Conforce or the other hyped trendster techno of 2011 is remotely "intelligent". |
I always wondered how the evolution of house affected techno. Back in the days defining techno and house was much simpler with the paradigms of "disco + drum machines" and "machine made music". Yet, with the advancement of technology and tons of new bedroom producers, house moved much into the area of "machine made music" itself. Almost none of today's house has any whatsoever correlation to disco and many times it feels like it has moved to a "lesser produced techno".
Maybe this might be one of the reasons why techno artists are trying to be as pretentious as possible. Even the word "techno" is somewhat of a crown-jewel word in the EDM world with people expecting some advanced, intelligent, next generation type of music. It seems that techno pretty much collapsed under its own fame. |
|
|
| Guest |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mattinsanity
sorry nigga, I've been living under a rock. |
ahahahahaha |
|
|
| Guest |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I wish I could remember the article I read that discussed how techno was the only self-consciously artistic genre of electronic dance music. I think it was in Last Night A DJ Saved My Life.
Basically, this is the one genre of dance music with obviously middle class as opposed to working class origins. The techno pioneers were educated and smart, and their music was a deliberate allegory for the urban decay and technological dystopia of 1980s Detroit. The early techno scene was not particularly druggy either. This was not escapist music for the working classes. Obviously things changed in the '90s with the very banging European sounds, but now the audience for electronic music has changed a lot, and with more and more people in the scene who aren't really into dancing and getting ed up (middle class hipsters, basically), techno's arty side is once again being emphasised.
I personally think a lot of this new, slower techno is actually pretty boring, and pretentious in a Mark Anthony way. It's no longer innovative or challenging, because the emphasis of cold machine music doesn't have any effect anymore, and the futurist manifesto is just a self-parody now, given how the genre is rife with retro self-referentialism and purism. It's just self-consciously "tasteful" dance music, it doesn't have the energy of genuine rave music nor can it free itself from the limited 4/4 paradigm of club music. Which is not to say I don't enjoy the moody and atmospheric techno that is put out these days, but I certainly don't think Sandwell District, Conforce or the other hyped trendster techno of 2011 is remotely "intelligent". |
I am ing honored to make an appearance in this reply. And bonus points for actually backing something that Mattsanity wrote with some history. Your analysis here is spot on. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Matt's threads are usually stupid, but sometimes it takes an idiot to voice the worthwhile questions other people are afraid of asking. |
|
|
| Mattinsanity |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I wish I could remember the article I read that discussed how techno was the only self-consciously artistic genre of electronic dance music. I think it was in Last Night A DJ Saved My Life.
Basically, this is the one genre of dance music with obviously middle class as opposed to working class origins. The techno pioneers were educated and smart, and their music was a deliberate allegory for the urban decay and technological dystopia of 1980s Detroit. The early techno scene was not particularly druggy either. This was not escapist music for the working classes. Obviously things changed in the '90s with the very banging European sounds, but now the audience for electronic music has changed a lot, and with more and more people in the scene who aren't really into dancing and getting ed up (middle class hipsters, basically), techno's arty side is once again being emphasised.
I personally think a lot of this new, slower techno is actually pretty boring, and pretentious in a Mark Anthony way. It's no longer innovative or challenging, because the emphasis of cold machine music doesn't have any effect anymore, and the futurist manifesto is just a self-parody now, given how the genre is rife with retro self-referentialism and purism. It's just self-consciously "tasteful" dance music, it doesn't have the energy of genuine rave music nor can it free itself from the limited 4/4 paradigm of club music. Which is not to say I don't enjoy the moody and atmospheric techno that is put out these days, but I certainly don't think Sandwell District, Conforce or the other hyped trendster techno of 2011 is remotely "intelligent". |
| quote: | I always wondered how the evolution of house affected techno. Back in the days defining techno and house was much simpler with the paradigms of "disco + drum machines" and "machine made music". Yet, with the advancement of technology and tons of new bedroom producers, house moved much into the area of "machine made music" itself. Almost none of today's house has any whatsoever correlation to disco and many times it feels like it has moved to a "lesser produced techno".
Maybe this might be one of the reasons why techno artists are trying to be as pretentious as possible. Even the word "techno" is somewhat of a crown-jewel word in the EDM world with people expecting some advanced, intelligent, next generation type of music. It seems that techno pretty much collapsed under its own fame. |
if I made a thread saying "house is flat out better than techno", all of you would queue up the reasons to discredit house and praise techno. life is hilarious. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| I grew up playing the two side by side. Lucky me, I have no need to differentiate between the genres - both exhibit equal brilliance in their own right. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mattinsanity
if I made a thread saying "house is flat out better than techno", all of you would queue up the reasons to discredit house and praise techno. life is hilarious. |
Probably because I don't really like house. |
|
|
| sljiva |
I always saw house music as a nothing more than a pure dancefloor entertainment - music to dance to, that's free from all of the higher concepts and profound intentions. It was continuation of disco music, which was itself a hedonistic and trivial form of strictly dance music. Couple of acts such as Larry Heard and Leftfield tried to raise it up a bit and give it a meaning, but none of them actually succeeded - it firmly stayed where it belong - on the dancefloor. Sure, you can listen to it at home, like pretty much any form of music, but it won't have the same effect. And if you're someone who's looking for something more in music, you'll certainly not gonna be satisfied with simple house arrangements.
On the other hand, techno had a pretty clear concept from the start and the themes it professed - advances in technology, future, space, robots, UFOs, and the culture aesthetic it possessed always elevated it from other types of simple dance music. While most of that philosophy got lost in the 90s, acts such as Carl Craig, Drexciya and UR in US, together with B12, The Black Dog and Kirk Degiorgio from UK, kept the spirit alive and well. Unlike house, techno is in constant state of change - kinda like technology from which it draws inspiration. Even in these days, people like Surgeon and Andy Stott still make albums that are both forward thinking and envelope pushing in the vein of these old principles. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by sljiva
It was continuation of disco music, which was itself a hedonistic and trivial form of strictly dance music. |
What a clueless statement. Do your homework before you spout off. |
|
|
|
|
