|
What do you think of dubstep? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
Having strings in a track is not nearly as tiresome to dance to as a cookie cutter breakdown/melody/snare roll or vocal/bass drop arrangement. That's not a manipulative set piece, it's just a musical element. I'm not ting on trance for using arps, or brostep for using halfstep rhythms.
Secondly, you're exaggerating massively to say every Detroit track has strings. Go listen to any Model 500 album at random and see how many tracks actually have strings. It's actually not that many, whereas there are literally thousands of uplifting trance producers where every single track will have a breakdown with a big melody and a snare roll in it. Every Detroit techno producer I listen to makes a variety of tracks, from heads-down bangers to melancholic melodic tracks and usually some beatless ambient moments as well. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Precisely what? My point is that the link between popularity and criticism has nothing to do with the fairness of that criticism. This notion that people just hate on what's popular to appear cool is a fallacy. People don't hate brostep for being popular, its popularity merely exacerbates its capacity to irritate. |
I didn't mean to say people hate on what's popular because it's cool. If you read what I said, popularity leads to criticism precisely because you're exposed to it more often, and it reaches people who wouldn't have otherwise had the opportunity to listen to it. That's why genres like uplifting trance and dubstep, I reckon, get so much more flack. Quality matters very little here.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And brostep is just a specific type of dubstep, just as clownstep is still drum 'n bass. This idea that brostep producers think they're still making dubstep, therefore brostep doesn't exist is a false opposition at best, and straight up bull at worst. |
The very existence of the term brostep is a false opposition at best, and straight up bull at worst. I'm claiming such opposition does not exist, how can I be the one making a false opposition?
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
To compare drum 'n bass as an overall genre with brostep as a specific subgenre is just nonsense. It does not compute. |
I'm comparing drum'n'bass with dubstep, and brostep with clownstep. If you cross the comparisons it does become nonsense because you're bringing different levels (sub-genre vs genre) together.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And your history of techno and trance is wrong. Neither came from house music. |
Wait, wait, techno music did evolve from house music. If you listen to early productions by the Belleville Trio, such as "Strings of Life", they sound very much like good old house. Later on, there were more hints of electro and the like, which helped set the genres apart, but the strong house music influence was there from the beginning.
As for trance, European pioneers such as "Dance 2 Trance" were clearly influenced by acid house, techno, and other genres that were being developed on the other side of the Atlantic. How can you account for the emergence of trance music without house and techno? |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Wait, wait, techno music did evolve from house music. If you listen to early productions by the Belleville Trio, such as "Strings of Life", they sound very much like good old house. Later on, there were more hints of electro and the like, which helped set the genres apart, but the strong house music influence was there from the beginning.
|
No. The first definitive House records started to come out in 1985/1986, the first definitive (May) records in 1987. If you want to get all nitpicky, the first House record came out in 1984 and the first Techno record in 1985.
House evolved frome the Warehouse disco style while Techno evolved from Electro and Funk. Those were two different developments that happened at roughly the same time, but isolated from each other. Yes, Techno had some influences from early Chicago record but it's way less than you make it out to be. Back then every city's scene was very isolated. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
No. The first definitive House records started to come out in 1985/1986, the first definitive (May) records in 1987. If you want to get all nitpicky, the first House record came out in 1984 and the first Techno record in 1985. |
Techno producers themselves weren't in full agreement about this independence from house music. You can find some of their quotes in the following article, in the "House or Techno" section, and there's the obvious link between both genres, with house being given temporal priority:
Heiko Hoffmann - From the Autobahn to I-94
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
House evolved frome the Warehouse disco style while Techno evolved from Electro and Funk. Those were two different developments that happened at roughly the same time, but isolated from each other. Yes, Techno had some influences from early Chicago record but it's way less than you make it out to be. Back then every city's scene was very isolated. |
Isolated enough to give rise to different genres, true, but not isolated enough to make them as fully independent... and house music, even according to your dates, came first. |
|
|
| Lira |
| It's been a pleasant discussion, by the way... I can't remember the last time I had the opportunity to talk about music around here. I guess I should post here in the MD more often :) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Sorry, I meant people here, as in MD, in this thread, on this forum. We'd been discussing the tastes of trance listeners and people on this forum earlier in that post, I should have been more specific. I don't mean amongst the public at large.
And again, brostep is not a false opposition because it's a subset of dubstep. It's not brostep or dubstep. Even in derogatory terms, brostep still counts as dubstep, the relationship is exactly the same as clownstep to drum 'n bass.
It's not even as though there's a wide-spread current of people seeking to divide brostep from dubstep anymore: the "true" dubstep fans have basically abandoned the term, preferring to call their music post-step/future garage/UK bass and so on. They've allowed the conflation of dubstep and brostep to run freely, because anyone who is self-consciously "real" about dubstep doesn't even say they make or play it anymore. There are very few proponents of "real" dubstep around anymore, apart from the DMZ/Sub Dub/etc. purists who are back to being a niche. Their disparagement of brostep as "not real dubstep" is no different to the hardcore junglists disowning clownstep or jump-up or other populist drum 'n bass styles.
Ultimately, as I've already pointed out, this is basically an irrelevance to a fanciful notion that if people rally around a term it represent a more cohesive sound than if they reject it.
As for techno, you've got it the wrong way around, because it evolved primarily from electro. Strings Of Life is from 1987. There are early techno tracks by Cybertron and Model 500 up to five years prior to that, and they are clearly heavily influenced by electro. As Ishkur says, "Classic techno started off sounding like electro, so don't be ashamed if you can't tell the difference." Strings Of Life was always considered a house-techno crossover track, something of an exception even at the time.
The origins of trance are more convoluted, by it is essentially a post-rave version of the German kosmichemusik sound of Klaus Schulz and co, who were using the word "trance" in reference to heavily arpeggiated space music as far back as the 1970s. Early trance producers took influence from things like techno, Belgian nu-beat and, yes, acid house, but to say trance "branched out" from house is complete fallacy, as it emerged from a melting pot of sounds. |
|
|
| zyklon-jay |
| UK Garage/2 Step style stuff yes, the rest, no. |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Techno producers themselves weren't in full agreement about this independence from house music. You can find some of their quotes in the following article, in the "House or Techno" section, and there's the obvious link between both genres, with house being given temporal priority:
Heiko Hoffmann - From the Autobahn to I-94
Isolated enough to give rise to different genres, true, but not isolated enough to make them as fully independent... and house music, even according to your dates, came first. |
As I've said, Techno did draw some influence from House. But saying that Techno did evolve from House is a gross exaggeration. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
And again, brostep is not a false opposition because it's a subset of dubstep. It's not brostep or dubstep. Even in derogatory terms, brostep still counts as dubstep, the relationship is exactly the same as clownstep to drum 'n bass. |
Actually, it's the bit in bold that I was trying to point out by claiming there is no such a thing as brostep. From what you often hear in judgements like "That's not dubstep, it's brostep", it becomes a false opposition, and this is what I'm primarily arguing against.
I guess the difference between our positions then is smaller than I (and perhaps we) previously thought, with me just going one step further.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It's not even as though there's a wide-spread current of people seeking to divide brostep from dubstep anymore: the "true" dubstep fans have basically abandoned the term, preferring to call their music post-step/future garage/UK bass and so on. They've allowed the conflation of dubstep and brostep to run freely, because anyone who is self-consciously "real" about dubstep doesn't even say they make or play it anymore. There are very few proponents of "real" dubstep around anymore, apart from the DMZ/Sub Dub/etc. purists who are back to being a niche. Their disparagement of brostep as "not real dubstep" is no different to the hardcore junglists disowning clownstep or jump-up or other populist drum 'n bass styles. |
Note taken.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Ultimately, as I've already pointed out, this is basically an irrelevance to a fanciful notion that if people rally around a term it represent a more cohesive sound than if they reject it. |
Can you think of a counter-example though?
| quote: | | quote: | Originally posted by Woony
As I've said, Techno did draw some influence from House. But saying that Techno did evolve from House is a gross exaggeration. |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
As for techno, you've got it the wrong way around, because it evolved primarily from electro. Strings Of Life is from 1987. There are early techno tracks by Cybertron and Model 500 up to five years prior to that, and they are clearly heavily influenced by electro. As Ishkur says, "Classic techno started off sounding like electro, so don't be ashamed if you can't tell the difference." Strings Of Life was always considered a house-techno crossover track, something of an exception even at the time.
The origins of trance are more convoluted, by it is essentially a post-rave version of the German kosmichemusik sound of Klaus Schulz and co, who were using the word "trance" in reference to heavily arpeggiated space music as far back as the 1970s. Early trance producers took influence from things like techno, Belgian nu-beat and, yes, acid house, but to say trance "branched out" from house is complete fallacy, as it emerged from a melting pot of sounds. |
|
Fair enough, I guess I did get this bit wrong then :) |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Having strings in a track is not nearly as tiresome to dance to as a cookie cutter breakdown/melody/snare roll or vocal/bass drop arrangement. That's not a manipulative set piece, it's just a musical element. I'm not ting on trance for using arps, or brostep for using halfstep rhythms.
Secondly, you're exaggerating massively to say every Detroit track has strings. Go listen to any Model 500 album at random and see how many tracks actually have strings. It's actually not that many, whereas there are literally thousands of uplifting trance producers where every single track will have a breakdown with a big melody and a snare roll in it. Every Detroit techno producer I listen to makes a variety of tracks, from heads-down bangers to melancholic melodic tracks and usually some beatless ambient moments as well. |
I'm not just talking about having strings, I'm talking about a very specific String sound. And again, I'd like to know what you're criteria for "manipulative set pieces" are. Does it depend on how you can dance to it?
And as I've said I'm referring to the very specific sound that comes to your mind when you think of Detroit Techno. I know that not every track made by Techno guys from Detroit does sound cliché, but I'm talking about those tracks that do fit in the cliché. Just like not every uplifting Trance track is by the numbers. Yes, Uplifting does have more of it, but that supports my original point of Trance being filled with rubbish producers flooding the market.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It's not even as though there's a wide-spread current of people seeking to divide brostep from dubstep anymore: the "true" dubstep fans have basically abandoned the term, preferring to call their music post-step/future garage/UK bass and so on. They've allowed the conflation of dubstep and brostep to run freely, because anyone who is self-consciously "real" about dubstep doesn't even say they make or play it anymore. There are very few proponents of "real" dubstep around anymore, apart from the DMZ/Sub Dub/etc. purists who are back to being a niche. Their disparagement of brostep as "not real dubstep" is no different to the hardcore junglists disowning clownstep or jump-up or other populist drum 'n bass styles.
|
The "real Dubstep" (as in classic DMZ style Dubstep) scene is pretty big. There's so many people that start off listening to Brostep and then grow into hardcore "real Dubstep" elitists. Just visit Dubstepforum. Yes, it doesn't even come close to the number of people who listen to Skrillex but neither does all the Future Garage/UK Bass music stuff. Or just go to any Skrillex content on the internet and you'll find a giant ass debate over what is Dubstep. |
|
|
| Settimo |
thread should be renamed:
what do you think of 'bass music'. |
|
|
| pointPi |
I actually have nothing against brostep/extreme dubstep/lfostep/distorted reggae/whatever. It will in fact sound fantastic, WHEN PUT IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT.
I'd actually go as far as saying that anything that doesn't literally hurt your ears (no, I'm not talking about Bieber, I'm talking about an actual jet engine right next to your ear) will sound good in the right context.
That's the keyword to keep in mind, context. |
|
|
|
|
