when was the precise moment that Techno became dated?

Techno? I'm sure it had something to do with AMP.

A case of non-intrusive techno - techno as muzak?

Maybe there should be a thread - Commercial 'Chillout' (i.e. Ministry of Sound) C/D?

(DUD!)

It just got too cheesy, with all the day-glo rave wear, shitty ecstasy and so on. That Paul Oakenfold/BT cheesiness kept a lot of mid-to-late-90s punk and indie kids from getting into good dance music.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I think it was when people in general had heard so many bleepy records that the whole thing became normalised and not futuristic in the slightest, really. This could have happened at any time between 1989 and 1998, probably, depending on a number of things.

You really are a peculiarly irksome little man, aren't you Geir?

i'm interested in why you are so convinced this is not a negative thing in any way - i am in two minds about it always.

hip-hop is so populist and accessible - versatile even - it is unlikely to go the way or the more marginalised techno. it is certainly fascinating to consider what music would be like today without hip-hop having emerged as it did. unlike Geir i think music would be all the worse without it but then i feel that way about techno as well. more Tech-hop please - with added melody even...

I think criticism that electronic music of any stripe became "dated" or "not futuristic any more" is more a sonic thing than a musical thing, in that even the most extreme sounds became so commonplace that they just weren't surprising any more, so perhaps "giving the fans another dose of what they want" is a red herring.

I would say Chemical Brothers and Underworld. And they are kind of the "old" techno acts who have had most criticism lately.

Not necessarily techno retro. They are doing the rock retro thing, which has probably pissed off a lot of hardcore techno fans (who tend to despise rock). Their techno retro isn't particularly "nostalgic" as they have just been doing "Exit Planet Dust" over and over.

1. The death of the rave scene was a major blow although people were still listening to pure Techno until about 95?

2. The rise of Trance. Even today I don't know the difference between Techno and Trance other than Trance might be a bit more succesful and is played by big DJs in big clubs.

3. The Fat of the Land.

Several of the most important genres in rock history are result of the merging of genres. While should that be impossible for techno?

I'm not sure dance music (presuming that is what we're talking about) has become dated. I mean it's an odd question anyway, if we're talking what the average punter/record buyer thinks then I still think the idea of repetetive electronic beats is not dated, on the contrary people still see it as a bit of a great unknown. If you look at the amount of rock records people are buying then it's clear that people still don't see it as dated.

However I think a more pertinent question here and perhaps the one Fritz is getting at is, when did dance music become something with a history and heritage and a hierarchical canon (one saturday off and I actually become articulate again, ahem!)

I mean lots of you probably know my feelings on this, that using Fatboy or Moby as examples is a total dud really, I don't know when the last lull in massive billion selling dance albums was but I doubt it was treated as a crisis or anything major either because just like now I'm sure there were plenty of good singles being played at the clubs.

What may be happening I guess is that a question is being asked of house as the main electronic genre from which these big selling albums (daft punk, the jaxx, fatboy, underworld, chems, at least in so far as these acts can be classified as anything) emerge. Having said that I doubt any other genre will emerge to replace it, it's an interesting time, is dance now "dead" in the same way rock is? ie, still potentially a breeding ground for good music but perpetually recycling itself?

And maybe it is, but the key and essential difference for the likes of myself to cling onto and the one which seems to be ignored by those suggesting this, is that dance has a scene and an underground following where producers have no interest in making albums and fans/djs have no interest in buying them, and this surely has lots of life in it yet.

Noone focuses on singles as a "next big thing" because it requires way too much thought, research, and also because readers etc aren't as anal as people who try and spot trends and new directions by grouping together singles from totally different artists.

The issue of what next feels kind of ridiculous too, I mean you'd swear some genre will suddenly explode in your face at the record store and next thing you know you'll be reinvigorated and dancing like a loon all day, when the reality is what's next is usually just a slow and gradual extension of what's already here.

I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just dull. So are "several of the most important genres in rock history"...

And yes, the aesthetics are fairly dated too...but the same can be said for Top Gun, House Party or whatever film, so that's not really a valid criticism.

I would say it's rather the opposite way round. All the best music has come as a result of merging styles. Just being innovative doesn't make it good. It may be "interesting", but to be good it does actually need to be listenable as well. And music that is innovative for innovation's own sake is rarely listenable.

also suppose the 'double helix' theory holds up, so electronic dance music is in its natural downcycle with something else rising up to take its place on the crest of the wave. possibly this is the 'rock revolution' or even the rejuvenation of credibility in pop music but that doesn't satisfy me at all. instead i think the fact that dance music and rave culture are approaching the end of their own adolescence and going into their 20s so things have really settled down in this respect, as they do with people.

Those who feel the need to rebel against older generations will not be able to do that through techno anymore though.

Well, there's merging and then there's merging. Stealing elements from previous music but warping them to fit your vision = good. Regressing to the time-worn clichés of rock music = dull. Thus, Every Man and a Woman is a Star sampling folk music on techno tracks, or Si Begg making a dub version of a line-dancing song is innovative, but The Prodigy thinking they're a punk band is just stupid.

Also, I guess we have a very different definition of "listenable". To me, any track which sounds new and has a rhythm or some other structure (no knob-twiddling) is listenable. If it sounds like something I've never heard before, it's probably great.

To each his own. I find both cases dull. However, Chemical Brothers adding elements of actual songs, with melodies, verse and chorus and all, and having some hip Britpop singer provide vocals on top of it, is a brilliant idea!

I think there is tremendous potential in crossing styles of electronic music with a more "traditional" aesthetic (mainly because it's what I'm trying to do with my own slipshod bleatings) but I don't think it's been done well yet. I'd be fine with the whole dance music with good lyrics / vocals etc. if it was an the raison d'etre of a specific act, not just an piss weak attempt to reach number six in the charts.

But abandoning melodies and traditional song structures is exactly what's interesting about electronic music. Returning to them is regression - been there, done that, boring. You shouldn't judge techno on pop standards.

I think 'Psyence Fiction' gets lots of unfair criticism - 'Lonely Soul' and 'Rabbit In Your Headlights' were actually conceived around the same time that 'Endtroducing' was realised, certainly before the impact of 'Urban Hymns' and 'OK Computer' the following year gave the use of guest vocals on an unavoidable tokenist impression. 'Be There' definitely has that somewhat contrived 'lets get Ian Brown on this just cos we can' feeling but its still a nice track and i'll defend the album to the hilt really...

The criticism of The Prodigy interests me; what they did was kind of the same template used by Avril Levigne, only I love the Prodge and think Avril only has one good song.

Damn right. And whoever came up with the terrible idea of adding vocals to trance should be shot.

I have heard an extremely large amount of amazing underground techno records lately...

People may not like the "with us or against us" mentality of this post, and others may feel I'm only a moderate as far as this position goes, but the reality to me is that Psyence Fiction is successful only in its utter abandoning of pretty much every aspect of techno or dance. I am repulsed by the idea of these albums along with Play being "dance music", when so many people who really fucking hate dance music then act as though they have a piece of the action.

Imagine say Moby winning best dance in a music magazine poll as happened last year, why the hell should this default option be allowed to have the tag "dance", it's disgusting and it potentially creates a "real dance with singers like Ian Brown" thing which is disgusting too.

I think the thing about actual techno is quite interesting, everywhere says it's getting popular, but I fail to see how it can ever really become popular until it throws off the hierarchy which seems to govern it at the moment. I'm not a major techno fan but what do Robin and Siegbran think of this? I'm talking about the way that techno, unlike house (my working example obviously), is constantly about the producers and the djs and there's seldom a buzz about particular tracks.

I mean that it doesn't seem to have the faddish buzz about several tracks one week, and several new ones the next. It's more a canonical thing where these guys seem to rule everything, the Hawtins, Clarkes, etc, they have their own style and they have the tunes.

In fact the techno tracks which get a really big buzz behind them are all played by house djs. Is this a fair analysis? I mean people talk about all of dance as being a closed shop where producers distribute to aging DJs who then play the records, but isn't this more the case with techno than anything else?

Again I may be being unfair or misunderstanding the appeal of techno, maybe it's not meant to be this way, but as far as massive popularity goes, I think the levels of hype remain highest when there is a buzz about new records or big tunes all the time.

sorry if I used loaded terms, I didn't mean to offend anyone. I'm sure techno means lots of different things and thrives in many ways, so please don't let the thread title get in the way. my mistake.

similar deal with techno artists really, except the likes of Jeff Mills are on a different plain and were never going to be commercial successes in comparison - tho i'm sure things like the 'Metropolis' album Mills did sold respectively well (or was it only bought by the diehard Mills fanbase?)

hence i prefer techno djs who don't spend all the time fucking around with the eq's (dave clarke),scratching,(umek)or performing novelty tricks (claude young's propensity to scratch with his chin,elbow,testicles,etc)

it is obviously this sort of opinion that leads to the perception of techno snobbery-which is fair enough,i suppose

i think the thing with techno is that most people who like it like other music as well (they have started putting hip hop on in the bar of one of the main venues for techno in dublin,which i'm in favour of),but if they go out to hear techno they want to hear techno,hence the idea of snobbery-they'd be happy to listen to other music at other times,or have a choice...

its just that a lot of people who like techno do seem to have this thing about it going on forever,thus seemless mixing is preferable..
as for the big tunes things,some tracks do become really popular,but yeah,they are probably just the very well known ones...
that ben sims/adam beyer track with the cuban singing,for example,was fucking everywhere for months...

in dublin,a hard techno dj knows that if people are starting to drift away during his set,all he has to do to get people up dancing is play something from live at the liquid room...
there is an emphasis on hearing tracks you've never heard before though,and all the tracks becoming a single entity,which in the hands of a bad dj,(and there are a lot of bad djs) makes all the tracks sound the same,but when its done well (surgeon live at tresor,11-9-98,for example,which i've mentioned here before loads of times but is still the best mix i've heard) the tracks become far more than the sum of their parts,without the dj having to resort to tricks,which disrupt the fl

This entire thread is delving into issues that I think have fuck-all to do with the actual music and everything to do with preserving a scene.

What right have songs which are made with the rock aesthetic to be called dance music? Why should we dirty the term? It seems so obvious to anyone who sees how clubs and dj sets work that those acts are not part of it. It's NOTHING to do with "the wrong sort of people".

And Dan yes it is to do with the scene, because dance music begins and ends with the scene, the scene is the music and always will be and the acts in question here, moby etc etc etc are always just the ripple, the scene is the stone. I realise these are big things to say and I'm not saying I Ronan am heir to the dance legacy or anything but part of loving something like this is that you do want to preserve the scene.

The issue of whether dance music is dated or not is entirely to do with the scene and the preservation of the scene, because the entire thing swings on how much big album selling dance grandaddys remain connected to the scene, and the reality is most have fuck all to do with at the moment.

And THIS is where the notion of it being dated comes into it, the idea that dance has become something with an underground scene doing its own thing and being solely about one off production, and that oblivious to all this, the Chems and Moby and Unkle and Fatboy are all making records. These big acts are less part of the scene than ever, and this idea of an emerging dance music canon, be it these guys or the early rave scene is what illustrates how dance is growing. Dated is kind of an odd phrase but I see what Fritz means to be the above.

Dance music is experiencing a kind of reinvention at the moment where it rethinks what it is and how it sees itself I guess, but the key issue at the moment as I said above is this one, and it's not snobbery it's just a question of what fans want. The issue is as I said, is dance music going to be entirely underground with the house beat remaining a pop staple, but basically the ideas that begin underground staying underground.

I mean the clear point to me is, if the clock is ticking for the Chemical Brothers and Fatboy and Underworld and Daft Punk and hell Basement Jaxx too, at this point, then surely the bomb has gone off fucking years ago for the likes of Unkle etc's place in dance music.

As regards Robin's post, it's interesting, I kind of was getting that sense towards the end of my post that what I might be missing about techno is the idea of the mix taking priority, I'm glad that seems to be the case, there might be hope for me yet, haha! I guess this is where the snobbery arises too though, I mean if the actual set is what's important, it's not much good seeing some guy play a few songs you like, it's a real devotion in that sense I suppose.

Ronan is right as ever in that the likes of Moby and the Chems are as far from the 'underground' scene as it exists in terms of regular clubbing, parties and pure heavy DANCE music - but then you still have the Chems latest 'Electronic Battle Weapon' being caned in clubs - its always been different for Moby being from New York and on his own somewhat. he was always a career artist, tied to the rave scene but not part of it in the same way the Prodigy or 808 State once were.

I can see an argument as to how Unkle is not rock, aesthetically, but I fail to see how this argument puts them into the dance bracket, and so it's not really one which is relevent to the thread. I don't think they are relevent to the thread really either. I'm not sure why anyone would want to stress that they are dance, I fail to see the point or the motivation, the bands you quoted above are a million miles more dance than Unkle, I'm not sure how you can't see the difference.

Ronan, CLEARLY there's a difference between Unkle and the groups I listed. My bone of contention isn't even so much that Unkle is "dance music" (although I'd be inclined to call them that as I think trip-hop is dance music and that's how I'd describe the tracks mentioned) as much as it is that people say that Unkle album sucks and I disagree.

Also, a genre without hard and fast boundries is a useless, meaningless genre.

heh, if you'd used the word triphop I think I'd have been fine with it.

Re:hard and fast boundaries, I think you've got to leave the door open for stuff to mess with them and still be part of the genre, I mean you can't predict what's about to come at you. But yeah generally I think you need the rules.

I guess the problem I have with triphops inclusion is that it means you could have an entire legion of followers who despised the club scene and the origins of dance, which seems a bit at odds with what dance is about to me.

Abandoning melodies and traditional songs structures is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and nothing but wrong!

THAT'S the quote I was reacting so strongly against! I was equating that with Ronan's mention of "the rock aesthetic" and thinking, "Wow, that's so reductionist and wrong."

Obviously I disagree with Geir that it's 100% wrong, but I must say that abandoning melody doesn't automatically make your music interesting.

(*cripples)

You obviously come from a whole different realm; that is, the realm of pop aesthetics. I guess you can dig the melodic end of electronic music, but you shouldn't judge the whole thing on your terms, because these are not the terms used by the majority of the producers, or the listeners, or the dancers. What you can say is "I don't understand it", but you can't say it's wrong. It's like me saying: "The Beatles sucked because they never used a drum machine."

Obviously I disagree with Geir that it's 100% wrong, but I must say that abandoning melody doesn't automatically make your music interesting.

Of course it doesn't. What I said was that contemporary electronic music as a whole is interesting because it abandons melody, but singular tracks can obviously still suck. Actually, I was being kinda provocative there. I have nothing against melody, it's just that to me, rhythm and sound are the most important elements in music, and melody should always be subordinate to them, not the other way around.

The force is now restored to balance.

(oh fuck I sound like custos)

Thanks, I take this as a compliment. But am I a dark sider or a light cider?

Nowadays if I listen to something like The Bells or early LFO or Plastikman or something, it DOES sound dated, far more than a lot of rock music from that era does (although not, incidentally, hip-hop). I think this is just due to the huge advances in sonic technology and multiple spin-off genres since then... maybe it will plateau out soon, maybe it already has.

The last ten years of pop music to thread!

But remember Geir, fusion can be bad as well; you can also merge the worst of both worlds. Ever heard of a record called "Kid A"?

I think Fritz, as I said before, is getting at the idea of techno or dance music having a prominent heritage and canon, he does say "became dated", ie that lots of techno now really is dated, and lots of ideas are becoming dated. Hell, I said this all already, but even the idea of major touring album releasing producers is no longer fixed.

I think what happens now is very interesting and a very good question, I'm surprised that's not clear. Also the hiphop analogy was completely ridiculous because hiphop is still selling massively, as much if not more than ever, not to mention the fact that the way in which hiphop is produced and consumed is so utterly different from dance, and also hiphop's critical canon is not nearly as rock solid as dance music's one. And that's not a value judgement, either, I don't know about hiphop's relevence to this thread but the straight comparison to ridicule the discussion was completely off the wall.

Surely you're oversimplifying. Of course everything has it's roots, but what has for example techstep to do with disco or Moroder? If you're talking about house specifically, it's true that disco-influenced house has been quite resistant to change... Then again, house has always been strictly dance floor music, and it serves that function well, even if it other genres have been more innovative.

I like that Medicine8 remix, the problem is all their remixes sound the same. I say problem but then when I think of seeing them do dex and fx and play every single remix and every one of their songs and how utterly awesome it was I have to think again.

Boymerang 'Still' (and everything else from Grooverider's excellent 'The Prototype Years' compilation)
Source Direct 'Call & Response', 'Capital D'
Ed Rush & Nico 'Technology'
Blame 'Planet Neptune'
Dillinja 'Armoured D'
Rufige Kru 'Dark Metal'

and loads of others, they're all from '97/'98 tho (where it peaked for me) - i'm not up on more recent stuff (as if that wasnt obvious)

I would consider techstep to be drum n bass of the Ed Rush variety which could definitely be linked w/ Moroder...

"It Takes a Nation Of Millions", "Three Feet High And Rising" and "The Chronic" usually do better in those "Best albums of all time" polls than "Leftism", "Music For The Jilted Generation", "Dig Your Own Hole" and "Play" do.

Of course this is also a matter of whether you classify "Blue Lines" and "Dummy" as techno or hip-hop. In a way, they are both and neither.

If said melody is a good one, you will love it forever. Not speaking of "Barbie Girl" here...

And as for the kind of music I like, I feel it has become a bit too retro lately. I mean: I grew up with 80s pop, I grew up with whatever came out of good melodic pop songs utilizing whatever technology was available at the moment. I am actually originally more of a synthpop fan than guitar pop fan, it is the fact that electronic music became umelodic (plus the terrible and almost unlistenable harsh sounds of late 80s digital synths) that made me move on to other musical territories.

So I think what melodic music needs, to survive and to appeal to the kids, is to stop sounding like 60s music, but instead combine its melodic songsmith appeal with whatever is "hip" in recent production.

Just like Human League, ABC and Duran Duran did in the 80s, that is...

These elements could easily be added to a more traditional pop aestethic and both genres would benefit from it. Mixing the best elements from techno (production, sound, groove) with the best elements from pop (traditional Ivor Novello pop songwriting values) would bring music in itself a major step in the right direction.

Fucking YES! Fucking YES! This is what I am CRYING to see happen. (postscript - I have smashed wine glasses against the wall writiing this) This is what I'm trying to do with this bullshit Lynskey persona.

http://lynskey.scumperson.eu.org/

and I'm not the most talented person in the world. When I was about 15 the dance music revolution in this country happened and to me the sheer sound of it was jaw dropping. It sounded so unlike anything I could dream of. It was massively childish and simplistic then, but I could see possibility after possibility. I thought that in ten years time people would be making this music sing and soar. Like Strings of Life was Richie Valens and it would all flow from there to someone doing an electro Pet Sounds.

It's not happened. It's a fucking crime. Why didn't people see it as a new way of expression? Why did people sidetrack it into its own subculture rather than seeing that there was something else here? Another medal on the pop music breast, a new sea of sound to swim into, like something as pivotal as the electric guitar was suddenly upon us? WHY?

Unfortunately I must digress from this threads original remit and include the whole of electronica in this. Techno ain't my bag, so I've appropriated the bits of electronica I like in what I do. I like Squarepusher's fuckyou-ness, DJ Food's fun-ness, Luke Vibert's groove-ness . . . I am willing to ignore all the parts I hate and incorporate all the bits I love into what I do. I also don't ignore my love of Kristen Hersh, Bob Mould, Television, etc. YOU SHOULD DO IT TOO.

Think of what electronica is. It's NOTHING. It's music made by sampling, synthing whatever. If you hate it it's because you don't like what it is so far and the social/stylistic elements of it. It's just a method.

IF YOU ARE A CREATIVE PERSON WHO DOESN'T LIKE ELECTRONICA THEN START DOING SOME. IT'S YOUR JOB TO MAKE SOMETHING IN THE GENRE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILL LIKE.

If you don't agree with that then your letting an entire area of creativity die forever. It needs doing and it needs doing now. There is an electronica Revolver to be made. There is an electronica Loveless to be made. There is an electronica Elephant to be made. But it's not going to happen unless YOU do it. Get out there and make it happen. It's not going to happen any other way.

If you have been composing in the guitar field on any other musical field then you will find it easy to get going. It's not scary. Remember the Oulipo literary movement. Constraints and unfamiliar territory are the wombs of art. Get in there. You will be plunging into untouched waters. Think what you could do as a rockist using electronic means. And you'd be there first. You would steer it away from it's stale state. You would be improving the quality of music for everyone. And you LOVE MUSIC.

Please, Please, people come with me. I feel very alone. If you are creative then take it on my advice that you will find a wealth of riches you never knew you could have. Especially if you are tucked into your guitar friendly pocket. I was a fucking Buffalo Tom fan, proper chords, proper tunes guy, but I kept my mind open and I found something. I've never looked back and neither should you.

This would render most of techno/acid house/techstep/ambient/dub/etc. meaningless. As I've said, different genres, different standards. The Beatles are not judged by their lack of funky rhythm, so techno shouldn't be judged by it's lack of melody.

I am actually originally more of a synthpop fan than guitar pop fan, it is the fact that electronic music became umelodic that made me move on to other musical territories.

Well, to me contemporary electronic music is more than music made with electronics. Bands like Depeche Mode or Human League are not part of the same continuum as today's electronic dance music, they were merely rock bands using synthesizers. Electronic music didn't "become unmelodic", because techno or house or even electro was never a follow-up to synth-pop, they have a whole different lineage. That lineage leads back to Miles Davis and George Clinton, not to Jean-Michel Jarre and Tangerine Dream. So electronic dance music never became unmelodic, because melody wasn't the point to begin with. Of course there still are synth-pop bands of the eighties variety, like Ladytron. Perhaps you should stick to them.

The above should answer Lynskey's question as well. There never was electro Pet Sounds or techno Revolver, because that was never the point of this music. Forgive for sounding idealistic, but for me techno and all that followed was, is, and should be about to things:
1)shaking your ass
and/or
2)exploring new sounds.

The first point should be obvious: dancefloor has different demands than home listening, so the rhythm is always the main thing, and that's the way it should be. As for the second point, to me rock and pop music were always boring, because there are only so many things you can do with guitar, bass, drums and voice. But, with the advancement of electronics, any sound imaginable is now realizable. There's nothing more beautiful than hearing a sound which is unlike anything you've ever heard before. That's the thing I want electronic music to be - the search for new forms, not some old wine in a new bottle.

In my opinion, a good drum break or a clever polyrhythm or an enchanting new sound is more important than a catchy melody. So, for me, there are countless examples of electro Pet Sounds and techno Revolvers. It's just that the same standards do not (and should not) apply to them as to The Beatles and The Beach Boys.

There will always be the need for pop songs anyway, and I think, instead of leaving it to the likes of Max Martin, it is better to have the pop singer/songwriter back. And combining electronica elements with quality songwriting is exactly what is needed like now. Which, like Lynskey says, should be done by talented songwriters, not by arrogant electronica ideologists, because the latter will never be anything but the Stockhausens or Schönbergs of today anyway, and they will never ever have any impact of the music the majority will listen to.

Btw. dancing sucks. Good music should be enjoyed sitting, actively listening to it. (A lot of intelligent electronica works fine that way, btw, particularly a lot of 90s progressive techno)

Forgive me, I tend to exaggerate to make my point clear. Obviously, most of the music I listen has some sort of melody, but for me that isn't the most important thing. Melody is good for giving a track some structure, otherwise it would be merely bleeps in the aether (of course, there are also good tracks made only of "bleeps in the aether"). So melodies are useful, but if they get too complex and intricate, they tend to draw the focus from the sound and the rhythm, which are exactly the things that separate electronic music from pop.

but a lot of rock fans have also got turned into dance music, and several of them would feel like taking the best elements from both.

Nothing wrong with that, but these people should then stick to listening The Prodigy and Ladytron instead of criticizing Jeff Mills.

Btw. dancing sucks. Good music should be enjoyed sitting

You're obviously not qualified to judge what makes a good dance track, then.

The idea of an electronica album modelled on something like Revolver or Pet Sounds or even Loveless is intriguing to me to be honest, but i can tell you now that if there was such a thing it could never affect me more emotionally or be loved by someone like me any MORE than how i already feel or have felt in the past about albums like Music For The Jilted Generation, Timeless, Endtroducing, New Forms, Ex:El, Second Toughest In The Infants, Leftism yadda yadda - at least i'd be very surprised if it did, this could be partly down to the fact that i'm not a kid anymore and i'm not sure you ever feel as passionately about the music as you do when you're growing up with it - bit like your first kiss/first crush or whatever in that respect - its naive but its pure and unbridled and naturally powerful.

There's also the fine points made by Tuomas and i think any album that relied more on electronic sounds/synths or samples rather than guitars but was aiming for the same kind of universal appeal as The Beatles, Beach Boys or whoever would risk ending up just too diluted to cater for such a broad audience, it would actually be limiting in that sense. also the concept of that kind of album is never something that really appealed to me anyway, maybe one day i'll really appreciate Pet Sounds etc. properly but all the time i was growing up i just didnt want to listen to anything like that as it just seemed so in the past, cliched (not its own fault) and something to rebel against. of course i did end up listening to a lot of inferior american rock and britpop later on but even something like 'The Stone Roses' or 'The Bends' were albums that never really got me going however great they are. not saying i'm right feeling that way as i did, just that there is no real wrong or right about this really.

You're obviously not qualified to judge what makes a good dance track, then.

haven't we been here before. use other facts please? why can't you listen dancing? why can't your "body" hear? etc etc

Techno became dated when it entered the canon. When people started looking at "the history of techno". But most of all when people started saying it was "jazzy"

I'm interested as to why you think this hasn't happened yet. What about the assimilation of electronica into more traditional 'song-based' music (cf Radiohead, Bjork, even Primal Arsing Scream)? Surely Screamadelica was an attempt to do precisely that? Massive Attack? And there are numerous records that could lay claim to being The Electronica Loveless.

I'll stop now, as I can picture Ronan working himself up into a towering rage as I type.

As for the examples you list, Björk have never written songs in a traditional way, Radiohead stopped doing so when they embrace electronica, while Primal Scream have usually done either, and only in a few tracks have they actually mixed melodic songs with electronica elements.

However, songs like "Higher Than The Sun" and "Star" are definitely what I'd love to hear more of. I feel "Yoshimi Vs. The Pink Robots" by The Flaming Lips is, as of now, the closest the world has come to a mixture of psychedelic and melodic pop with electronica elements through an entire album though.

No, because there is no need to expect current electronica acts to make that kind of album. They never will anyway. It is rock/pop singer/songwriters who will have to add electronica elements to their music, the opposite thing is never ever likely to happen anyway.

Matt I agree with you that those albums probably did that, that's why so many of them are shite haha. I like some of them I'm sure but either way they are shite ; )

Tuomas is otm, elitist or arrogant as it may be, if you think dancing is stupid or if you conveniently ignore the fact that most dance music is made for physical response then to use a cliche, you don't get it. And probably never will. The whole world dancing to this music and yet it's not meant for dancing to, lunacy!

And Geir I suggest you actually attempt to understand my post because you clearly don't have a fucking clue what the point it's making is. Please feel free to think I'm an idiot and leave the thread though.

The Beatles themselves were to change that forever, adding certain European stylistic values to popular music, but this didn't prevent them from loving the same stuff most guys their age did.

Of course I'm being disingenuous here - I know there was more to the Beatles music than *just* danceability but then again there's more to Jeff Mills or Carl Craig than just danceability.

Oh god, I've turned a thread about techno into a discussion about the Beatles - I am the uber-rockist!

Well, exactly. Not to mention is definitely a lot more to Orbital and Leftfield than just danceability. And those elements (great synth sounds, marvellous stereo effects/sorrund effects, and sometimes pretty interesting rhythm figures too) are kind of the most interesting elements to me, elements that should be picked up by rock/pop writers and combined with good traditional melodic pop songs to create a new genre that will save melodic music from the retro ghost and make it able once more to compete among younger singles buyers.

but Ronan:

Asking why there isn't an electronica "loveless" or "revolver" is like asking why there isn't a Beatles live at the liquid rooms or something. Jesus.

no no Ronan no! I think Lynskey's question is much more interesting than you're allowing it to be, and I think some of this has to do with the preservationist stance you earlier alluded to having toward the scene. I mean, it's like there's a generally accepted proposition in dance music that states "we don't wanna do things that rock did becasue we are not trying to play the rock game OK!" which is GREAT in some ways don't get me wrong, but to take this to the extreme of "we don't want genre-definining masterpieces because that's a rock thing, having genre-defining masterpieces" is a stance which, while once useful in establishing the We Are Different position, doesn't really hold up. Why shouldn't there be dance records that people still listen (and dance!) to twenty years later because they were just so fecking on point? Of course there should - and of course there are, throughout the history of dance -- lots of '80s dance never stopped being compelling, anybody who thinks Bobby Konderz records don't sound terrific in the here-and-now needs his head examined, and what about Glenn Miller's "In the Mood"?

I mean, comparatively, it'd be as if there were a new school of literature that broke all kinds of basic rules of narrative & even grammar, and it produced a lot of really interesting work but no one writer had produced a really beginning-to-end piece in this style, and the proponents of the style said "bah, humbug, greatness is a thing of the past." Not to be too too mega-rockist but greatness need not be an exclusively rockist concept, nor need the acceptance of its possibility relegate one's stance to the realm of rockism.

But isn't it the case that there's some of this anti-masterpiece sentiment? Or have I just disappeared into the cavern of my hind end again

hope not, I thought I was kind of onto something

But if some rock/pop act made a highly electronica influenced album, then that album would be a defining masterpiece within the dance genre. Nobody has ever claimed it would. However, it might well become a defining masterpiece within the traditional melodic pop genre, and thus saving the genre from becoming dating and allowing that genre to appeal to new generations that would otherwise know no other melodic music than what they are forced to sing in school. That is my point here.

Thus, such a genre defining work will have to come mainly from the pop/rock camp, because it is probably easier (not to mention more acceptable from its values) for that camp to adopt elements from electronica than the other way round.

I think it would be cool to see rock bands adopt some elements of dance music, if it was done right, repetition or whatever, who knows what could happen. I think that idea is one which has often been discussed here. I disagree about saving the song format though, I'd rather see the instruments remaining rock or whatever but the idea and aesthetic being dance.

That has already been done by Chemical Brothers, Prodigy and Apollo 440.

That's the Contino Sessions, isn't it? Or a lot of dronerock?

did I miss something?

Whereas with dance music, even if the tune itself or even the beat aren't especially interesting, any bleepy noise can carry a track, especially in a club setting, through changing textures and frequencies and in general being able to give the impression of something building up which is why electronic instruments lend themselves to repetetive music far more.

even metal and heavy rock acts like Linkin Park and Korn have brought in more samples, synthesized sounds and the like recently - its pure background but it seems like an attempt to make them seem more contemporary. i remember hearing A's 'Nothing' and The Music's 'The People' and thinking it was a surprise to hear what sounded like a TB-303 style patten amongst the thrashing guitars too - again tho, background stuff really, not meant to upstage the guitar dominance just a nod that they're not totally retro purists like...The Strokes or something

I think people have taken what I said the way they wanted to. My main point was aimed at the creative sector. I was talking about electro not as a style or anything, just the actual tools of it, 909's, Reason, Akai's, Fruity Loops, Acid, Kontakt . . . and just saying to people to ignore what you have heard so far and jump in there. I was just trying to spread something which to me was a completely life changing experience, one of the best things that has ever happened to me.

I wasn't saying I wanted a Pet Sounds made of bleeps. I said I thought things would progress a lot more than they did in terms of different sounds and new ideas. What I am bemoaning is the lack of these tools being used on a ground level and the snobbishness on both sides regarding them. I don't agree with Gier and I don't agree with Tuomos.

A lot of my perspective and that rant is due to long running arguements I've had with exceptionally talented people I know who are in guitar bands and hold the line that music produced by electronic kit is emotionless and cold. Well put some fucking emotion into it yourself then. Grab it. Improve it. These people are sludging out yet another soundalike of their favourite band when they could be challenging themselves and the whole concept of what electronic music is. What's going to more rewarding? I understand these comments happening from the listener / fan's perspective, but I was really aiming at the creative sector.

I'm not advocating a rockulising of dance music or anything like that. I want to see something new. The possibilites are there. I wasn't asking for the Beatles at the Liquid Rooms, I was asking for something that I'd never heard before. Steve is right - Music For The Jilted Generation, Timeless, Endtroducing, New Forms, Ex:El, Second Toughest In The Infants, Leftism yadda yadda are all great albums. Mainly because they sounded so different and fresh. This is what I want to see more of.

The points I've read from the fan perspective are very interesting, even if a few did get my point a bit wrong. A lot of that is because I think my point wasn't much to do with the thread remit, I was responding to something someone said further up that I just clicked with.

What I'm getting at is that electro kit has produced less than a millionth of it's potential. It has come along way, listen to the difference in those albums Steve mentioned, Rei Harakami, Lali Puna, Q-Bert, Plaid, Alpinestars, Breakbeat Era, Denki Groove . . . it's going all over the place but NOT ENOUGH GODAMMIT! I want MORE! MORE I TELLS YE! Musicians of the world go out to your windows now and yell "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

Ok. I'm getting a bit scary now. I'll shut up.

stereolab? up to emperor tomato ketchup i think. the live shows had that dynamic, although perhaps the audience didnt always respond that way, but their gigs certainly felt this way

I'm only half joking here.

And can I say again that I'm not talking about taking the rock approach to electro. I'm talking about throwing the whole book out of the window and doing something new.

i have to say, though, ronan, upthread re: 'the scene' you sound like a (puNxOr) hardcore fanatic. and i'm not just saying that to piss you off or to be rockist, i mean it because i think when you say that your music should only ever be for one purpose, for one end, and should only sound a certain way, then it will get boring fast and die a slow death. and maybe this sort of thing is for the best, because maybe scenes shouldn't hang around for ages frightening the children and complaining about the tea, and maybe fanaticism is better than dilettantism etc etc ...but i still think that the most interesting things in music happen when a genre is open to becoming something other than what it is now.

RENEGADE SOUNDWAVE, BOMB THE BASS, S'EXPRESS AND THEIR PACEMAKERS TO THREAD!

Ah, I'm on a fucking loser here aren't I? Tell you what, lets keep "rawk" over here "techno" over here and we can all disappear up our over genreised arses.

For the last fucking time I am not talking about . . . oh fuck it. You're winding me up, aren't you? Well you're all OLD you're really FUCKING OLD. And if I am ever driving a CAR near you I'll shout that out of the WINDOW at you. And I'll be wearing a SILLY HAT bearing the moniker "Geir is GOOD for you!"! And I'll be reciting LISTS! POINTLESS LISTS! I'll give you my ten favourite WHIGFIELD tracks with NO EXPLANATION! And I'll be making CLAIMS! Spurious claims about how JESUS hate JAZZ! and how JOHNNY hates JAZZ! and there'll be LOTS OF CAPS LOCK! And Hasselhoff pictures! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Yeaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgh! Brain . . . failing . . . can't . . . move . . . my . . . . . .

Lynskey I don't know who you're arguing with! Ronan's the only one who's come close to stating the position you're arguing against but really I think he's saying the same thing as you: techno hasn't hybridized with enough other genres in some kind of organic way that feels right (VERY disputable by my lights); Ro just has a slightly different - and pragmatic - conclusion, from the perspective of a 'consumer' (blech) rather than producer: keep it out of my dance clubs until you get it right please. Keep in mind Ronan loves "Danger High Voltage" and "Lazy"!!

Not the truly good pop music. Coldplay aren't electronic, Travis aren't electronic. Oasis aren't electronic. Crowded House weren't electronic.

Sure you've got crap like Aqua and Britney Spears, but that simply just doesn't count. That's not what I am speaking of when I am speaking of classic Ivor Novello songwriting anyway.

Yes, but they haven't melded POP (and I am speaking of classic singer/songwriter pop here - sort of keeping up the Lennon McCartney songwriting style forever) with electronica. Those albums are mainly electronica albums with added rock elements, while what I am waiting for is a typical Powerpop/Britpop album keeping the songs, the melodies and the harmonies, doing absolutely nothing else than replacing guitars with synths.

This will bring us quite close to the synthpop of the early 80s, true, only so much has happened in technology since then that it will still sound completely different from what "Dare", "Tin Drum" or "Speak & Spell" did.

actually i suppose this is true. the openmindedness thing is a characteristic of pop, and obv what keeps pop alive, but genres are usually based around rigid but not immutable ideas of what that genre is. without that, they'd all just be pop. at the same time, though, i think ronan is right in pointing out that dance is faced with a kind of choice at this stage of its lifetime: whether to become more flexible or 'openminded' for the sake of keeping the flame alive (continuing to bring in new listeners, preventing the scene from being burdened by its own history as tends to happen to every genre), or to open up?

i would argue that rock has stuck around for as long as it has because it is schizophrenic in a way. one side of it has rock fans who think that the Beatles are the be all and end all, which is important because their idea of what rock is includes the experimentation of Revolver/Sgt Pepper. the Stones, on the other hand, are the purists who are all about the blues and r'n'b, and any time they try to stray outside of that, the rock establishment usually slap them on the wrist and say
'no no make Exile again'. so you have something that is both a genre and is remarkably inclusive at times, which is why it's still around in some form.

so what i'm saying is, dance kind of has to decide if it wants to be like rock and build that flirtation with other things into the core of its being, or risk being abandoned as 'dated' because of its essentially puritain core? i don't know that either one is better, but there are significant arguments to be made either way.

Right that's super. !!!

&

Ronan talked about rock assimilating some of Dance's strictures/structures and he mentioned repetition - this got me to thinking how does the repetition work in dance music? Is it like a sort of build? 'Cos what I'm thinking when you say repetition in rock context is either: a) drone or b) circling (like JBR on 'He War' or me on Tara Jane O'Neill) where the circling motion is more an attempt to get closer to this small kernel of truth, like a one legged man running round a circular maze with his soul in the middle. Whereas in Dance the circling seems to be more trying to get out of youself. This triumphant moment where you just sort of burst on the dance floor (Matos talked about his friend's orgasm on the dance floor).

Just a small thought, to tide over will I read the rest of this thread.

of course really it is not very important and techno survives precisely because it is perenially an underground scene, forever pulsating, thriving even, in the shadows while other things, such as techno-influenced pop music (fatboy slim etc.) steal the limelight.

Who thinks that all ideas have to be carried through? More to the point, who thinks ideas have to be carried through by the person originating the idea? I'm not sure Lynskey was being prescriptive (though I'll have to re-read his part again) but merely bandying around the idea that dance shouldn't be frightened of 'concretising' the quality of something in the idea of 'seminality'. Which is to say, dance crit/talk/dance itself (I keep typing Dance) shouldn't be scared of making these claims of absolute claims of quality/revolutionariness/seminality. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't see how Lynskey has to go out and 'Loveful' to validate his idea.

I don't think that there's any necessity to have 'done it yourself' when you're bandying around ideas. Not at all.

And I think you're maybe missing his point: or maybe I am: the point is about the values attributed the music rather than the music itself. And if that's not his point then I'll have it as mine.

(Fusing rock and dance: "So Much Love to Give".)

I don't think he's said anything like that really. And yes if we're talking about music you don't have to be a musician, but if you have all these ideas which you believe should be done then don't expect anyone to think they'll fucking work if you don't do them yourself. There's a massive difference between discussing art and berating existing artists for not carrying out a grand vision, the execution of which is beyond you yourself, and barely defined anyway.

this is why i always get frustrated with the arguement that djing isnt a musical talent,or worse,for some reason,people who think it is if its utilising loads of tricks or scratching or whatever...
the thing with techno is that there are only so many tracks and so many sounds,so making a set sound really good is a huge talent even (or especially in my opinion) if its seamless mixing without any fucking around...

I agree that the track is the correct form for any dance-floor oriented music. However, haven't there been enough examples of great albums at the ambient/experimental end of electronic music? Moreover, some of these I think work even better in the album form than rock/pop, because rock/pop is usually song-oriented, whereas ambient albums almost always have to be listened as a whole. Admittedly, there's always the danger of sliding into pomposity or pretension, but I still think there are enough seminal records to prove my point.

Dronerock: boring. It always sounded to me like rock musicians trying to make electronic music but being afraid to go the whole way. Repetition is interesting, but there's more than that. One reason why repetition is use in non-danceable electronic music is that it takes the focus off the melody and puts it on the sound. And there only so many sounds you can make with a guitar. So the point in repetition is both to create a hypnotic effect and to highlight a beauty of a new sound. Dronerock succeeds only in the former.

In electronic music, progressions within a genre are usually more interesting because progressive producers have already internalized the freedom implicit in electronics. Whereas where trad musicians are concerned, they tend to use electronics only to compliment their own style, so the structural limitations of the traditional approach can still be seen. I'm not saying it's impossible for a rock/pop musician to take the leap, but it's going take a lot de-learning.

white label fanaticism etc. - irrelevant to all but the most anoraky spotters and DJs with regular work surely

none of these criticisms seem to have much to do with the actual music either, as in how great it can sound for such simplistic reasons there's no need to speculate on beyond sonic nature, or indeed how 'dated' it sounds 5/10/15/20 years later (also kind of irrelevant ultimately). one thing i do wonder though is whether the time spent crafting 'home electronica' is time spent creating pure dancefloor/club-orientated tracks...

Also I'm not so sure about stuff only working in a club environment. I tend to listen to the stuff that I think works in a club, outside a club and everywhere else aswell. Most of it seems to go down just as well, drinking with friends or whenever. I think dance music has been exposed enough to the world at this stage that if you listened to enough you wouldn't need to ever be in a club. No more difficult than any other genre, probably alot less difficult than some.

Electronic music is anything that is made using electronics only. There is no rule that electronic music must abandon structural traditions. It may well use structural traditions and concentrate of doing new stuff in the sound and groove rather than by abandoning traditional song structures.

But that is hard to accept for some people within the electronic music scene, because it means you will actually need musical skills in addition to computer skills.

Yes, but I was talking about progression in electronic music, not electronic music all in all. Progression = abandoning at least some of tradition, right?

It may well use structural traditions and concentrate of doing new stuff in the sound and groove rather than by abandoning traditional song structures.

Yes, but as I've said many times, traditional song structures tend to focus on the melody, which undermines the the effect of the groove and the sound. This is why big beat has a more conformist feel than, for example, techno.

Dave Q, I despise knob-twiddling as much as you. I hate The Aphex Twin, but I love 310. Why? Because 310's records are about the simple joy of finding sounds which pull some emotional strings, rather than playing with sound ad infinitum. I know the line is sometimes hard to draw, but you can usually spot anal retention when you hear it.

I'm not convinced this is true. At all.

Progression = adding new elements, not neccessarily abandoning old ones.

Yes, but as I've said many times, traditional song structures tend to focus on the melody, which undermines the the effect of the groove and the sound.

That is only natural, because melody is more important than groove or sound.

This where we should end the debate. There's nothing more to add. In this thread, I've been dubbed "anti-Geir", so all I can say is "You are evil and your opinions are wrong!"

(Of course I could into lengthy arguments how melody is more important in some genres, while in others groove or sound matter more. But that wouldn't change your mind, would it?)

Matt, this may be a bad analogy, but think of the difference between a realist and an abstract painting. In a realist painting, your focus is on what's happening in the painting or what it depicts. An abstract painting on the other hand is about what colours and forms are put on the canvas. Realist paintings of course have colours and forms as well, but they tend to be lost as a part of something bigger.

Side-question : Do you think electro kit can achieve much more stylistically than what has been achieved so far?

. . . I take all leave. Yours is as the Devil finds him. You will find him for you are a religious man.

Can I just note that I am sort of "with" Lynskey in his project, and as such have a huge amount of sympathy for what I interpreted him to mean when he first posted -- although I've never thought of it as a plan or a prescription, just something that I personally want to explore.

The problem he's getting at is how a certain set of musical tools and sounds -- drums machines, synths, sequencers, "electronics" -- got conscripted in the service of a scene. Obviously that's not all they're used for, especially not recently, but I do think they "belong" to dance genres way more than the guitar "belongs" to any comparative area of rock. And it's for basically the reason Lynskey points out: people say "oh I hate that fucking thump thump thump music" and so they never look at a drum machine long enough to see if there's anything else it can do.

Whereas I love the thump thump thump, but it's not a huge part of my history, not something I'm immersed in or know a ton about. And that's precisely why -- maybe a bit like Lynskey -- I want to take it on and use it to try and make the sort of music I hear and just see what comes from that: I'm tempted to imagine that the less I know about proper "dance" genres the more fun and productive this'll be. ("Here's to outsiders gettings it all wrong.") The impulse -- for me, anyway -- isn't to say that dance music is crap and should be more like Revolver and therefore I'm going to make it that way. It's that there are all of these great electronic tools that, when it comes down to it, haven't actually been used to make as many types of music as they probably could be. If I dive into them it's very possible I'll just end up making a bunch of crap that was already chewed up and spit out by 1986 and I just don't know about it. But I think it's more likely that I could eventually come up with something interesting.

And a ton of the pop I like right now seems to be coming from people who are fascinated by the processes and sounds of dance music but don't necessarily feel a need to be a part of the genre: anything from Audio Bullys to Timbaland productions to plenty of electro do this for me. I'm sure it sucks if you feel like someone is just stealing ideas from dance music, but in a lot of instances I don't think that's the case. I'm thinking of something like a Streets paradigm here: does Skinner "take" from garage and not "give" anything back? Does he cheapen it or misrepresent it? I'm sure there are plenty of people who think so, but I don't think it has to be the case at all. And the part of what Lynskey said that I respond to is the idea of trying to approach proper serious in-scene dance music sort of the way Skinner approaches garage.

(And with stuff like some of those Audio Bullys tracks the criss-crossing doesn't even seem significant -- it sounds completely natural, like people should have been doing exactly that for years and years.) (Granted, there's a case to be made with Audio Bullys that people have been doing something like that for years, but you know what I mean.)

-- Tuomas (tuomas.alh...), April 7th, 2003. (later)

i don't mean this to sound pedantic so much as to explain what i meant further and prevent talking at cross purposes,but when i said the main unit of techno/dance music was tracks,i presumed the discussion was about dance music to be played in clubs...
thus what i was saying was that "dance" music was for clubs-album oriented electronica i would consider to be a completely different type of music,albeit with links to dance music,no doubt in part due to what nabisco is talking about above to do with certain types of music being associated with certain processes/instruments...
i mean,i happen to like abstract electronica,but i think its a different kettle of fish altogether
not that im saying its off topic and shouldn't be discussed,but i think its a separate issue to why there hasn't been a dance loveless or whatever (and i know that expression has been disowned upthread as well,but you know what i mean)

This is a particularly immortal sneeze of mace.

Finland VS Norway, FITE!

when is the precise moment dated techno will become hip again?

12/21/2012