Explain to me the term "electronica"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Where did it come from? Do people still use it? What does it mean? Is it different than techno? Do artists consider themselves electronica?

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 2 September 2004 05:39 (twenty years ago)

Music made by electronic devices - ('electronic')

First letter of the alphabet - ('a')

'electronic'+'a' = 'electronica'

― Sasha (sgh), Thursday, 2 September 2004 06:29 (twenty years ago)

"Electronica" is "electronic" in spanish.

― Diego Valladolid (dvalladt), Thursday, 2 September 2004 06:35 (twenty years ago)

it's a catch-all term for the infinite amount of genres and subgenresof electronic music. mostly meaningless.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 2 September 2004 07:28 (twenty years ago)

if i'm not mistaken i think the term started to be pushed when the US music industry wanted to promote electronic dance music as the "next big thing" after alt-rock or whatever. electronica was a handy term for them.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 2 September 2004 07:32 (twenty years ago)

Yes, that's my first memory of the word too. It came from the states.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Thursday, 2 September 2004 07:37 (twenty years ago)

Latebloomer is right about the origin of the word, but I think nowadays "electronica" has come to mean all sorts of indie home listening electronic music, as opposed to the clubby stuff.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 2 September 2004 07:41 (twenty years ago)

Also I remember hipsters turning their noses up at the term the same way as they did when "alternative" became the big industry buzzword.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 2 September 2004 07:42 (twenty years ago)

Electronica is great for one thing - it means a completely different thing to (the vast majority of) Americans than it does to anyone in Britain, and probably Europe.

I really like its centre of confusion it causes.

― ___ (___), Thursday, 2 September 2004 08:00 (twenty years ago)

Dance music you can't dance to.

― Jimmybommy JimmyK'KANG (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 September 2004 08:45 (twenty years ago)

it's never caught on and it never will. used by the very ignorant reviewer only.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 08:54 (twenty years ago)

That's kind of unfair, Ronan. I much prefer someone to use Electronica (in the UK sense) rather than that abomination of a term, IDM.

― ___ (___), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:00 (twenty years ago)

Hmm, what can I say that is most likely to bait Ronan into doing his hugely entertaining Campaign For Real Dance thing? Where's Farrell when you need him?

;)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:02 (twenty years ago)

I guess but it seems to be misused so so often. Something gets mildly progressive and they whack out the electronica word. I wouldn't mind if it was never ever used to describe artists I like. not least cos it's so often used in a stupid sentence like "touches of electronica".

Like you'd never say "touches of rock", or "touches of dance music".

I guess "indietronica" sounds even stupider but at least it's extremely descriptive.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:04 (twenty years ago)

same here

it is quite a nice neutral term
inoffensive

like minotaur shock or something.

― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:04 (twenty years ago)

oops xpost

― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:04 (twenty years ago)

hey this isn't about "campaign for real dance", it's just a stupid term which carries little or no meaning. because it never got fully established as a genre name it's used in a clichéd way as a sort of codeword.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:05 (twenty years ago)

But I think the use of "Electronica" that Ronan is objecting to is the kind of writer who used to say "synthesisers / keyboards". They are all to aware that it isn't that anymore, or isn't necessarily so, and as an alternative use "electronica" to cover "I couldn't be arsed finding out".

I would say that Ulrich Schnauss and the like are "electronica". Kind of like a wash on a water colour, a bit "meh", nice to go to sleep to.

― ___ (___), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:11 (twenty years ago)

Yeah the first time I remember seeing the term 'electronica' written in the British press anywhere (other than to infer "hah, look what these dumb Yanks are calling OUR MUSIC") was in a pretty derisive way over that godawful Smashing Pumpkins Adore thing.

Nowadays it means Four Tet and the like, doesn't it? Or is that folktronica? Its all so confusing...

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:18 (twenty years ago)

Matt - for FourTet I just use the term "pish", but this is quite a populous and varied catagory.

I'd say FourTet is electronica - perfectly fits into the "meh" bit.

― ___ (___), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:20 (twenty years ago)

"dance music"

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:22 (twenty years ago)

Who the hell dances to FourTet? Complete misnomer. Sleep music, boredom music - I will let you away with either. Dance?!

― ___ (___), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:31 (twenty years ago)

i prefer it infinitely to 'IDM' as a term

Four Tet - i quite like, i don't know what to call it, so i don't really

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:51 (twenty years ago)

I've always used the other bone-of-contention term 'post-rock' for Four Tet.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Thursday, 2 September 2004 10:08 (twenty years ago)

I thought Four Tet, Ulrich Schnauss et al had been pegged as laptronica?

IDM makes me think of those old Volume Trance Europe Express compilations, and Megadog, and Sherman in the NME, and that sort of thing.

― mike t-diva (mike t-diva), Thursday, 2 September 2004 10:09 (twenty years ago)

Explain to me the term "electronica"

That's simply "electronic" as Mark E. Smith would sing it.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:17 (twenty years ago)

Or James Hetfield.

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:18 (twenty years ago)

Another thing - I may be wrong, but Americans seem to use 'techno' as a blanket term for all genres of 'danceable' dance music. Eminem even called Moby techno in that song he did. Moby is not techno.

― Wooden (Wooden), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:23 (twenty years ago)

yes that really annoys me too.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:24 (twenty years ago)

Minotaur Shock >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Four Tet.

Wooden's post just allowed me to add more >>>s.

― R.I.M.A. (Barima), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:24 (twenty years ago)

Nobody listens to techno.

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:24 (twenty years ago)

Right, right, Moby is electronica.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:25 (twenty years ago)

moby was techno in 1992: go

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:26 (twenty years ago)

So what is Moby by British definitions then?

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:26 (twenty years ago)

Go is not techno.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:26 (twenty years ago)

Go is a house record, progressive I guess but at the time perhaps this wasn't what you'd have called it.

I would say nowadays by UK definitions Moby is "chill out" or something.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:27 (twenty years ago)

Seriously though, I'm not sure what could be wrong with the term as a descriptive element, rather than a defined genre; used in a descriptive way it means just what the -a suffix says, which is that there's electronic stuff going on on some level. And Ronan, this sentence baffles me: "You'd never say 'touches of rock?'" People say that (or its equivalent) all the time!

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:28 (twenty years ago)

I'd describe 'Go' as old skool, hardcore, or rave. It's not squelchy enough for techno.

― Wooden (Wooden), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:28 (twenty years ago)

This thread is making me hate electronic music.

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:29 (twenty years ago)

I am at a modern day Drugs Party. That man over there? He is smoking A Crack.

― Jimmybommy JimmyK'KANG (Nick Southall), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:30 (twenty years ago)

Has he got spliff smoke coming out of his drug end?

― Wooden (Wooden), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:31 (twenty years ago)

Back in the early eighties, it meant the home recording/electronic music tape trading scene. People would make cassette albums on their home built analogue synthesisers, sell/trade them, and play yearly "festivals" (EG "u.k. electronica '85") where all of the fans/producers of this kind of music would gather and try to convince themselves that this music had any chance whatsoever of commercial breakthrough. I think some Kitaro knock-off act sold something like two thousand five hundred 12" albums. That's what "electronica" means to me.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:32 (twenty years ago)

people might say that about a dance record Nabisco, but never about a rock record! "touches of rock" in a rock review would seem so moronic.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:34 (twenty years ago)

Wouldn't people usually say "touches of electronica" in a rock review, like maybe, I don't know, Le Tigre or the Notwist?

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:37 (twenty years ago)

Sure, Ronan, and that's why people mostly say "touches of electronica" in reviews of rock records, "folk" records, and other such things. ("Touches of electronica" is almost solely reserved for non-electronic acts who go into a studio and suddenly decide they should put whooshy sounds and programmed beats around whatever it is they normall do.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:38 (twenty years ago)

xpost. Yeah, Notwist is a great example; you certainly wouldn't use any particular dance-music term to describe the stuff they do; "electronica" is the shorthand for describing what, precisely, that element is.

NB the reason Americans started using the term "electronica" is that apart from massive C+C-types and Euro hits, this country never had enough of an electronic-dance-music blowup to see album-oriented electronic acts as a part of that continuum. People started saying "electronica" to describe album-oriented acts like Underworld, Orbital, etc., but prior to that the US hadn't had anything like the rave moment in the UK, so that artificial distinction got set up.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:44 (twenty years ago)

Moby has made techno tracks

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:48 (twenty years ago)

'Go' is from the time the terms house and techno were hand in hand/not so clearly defined. the Woodtick mix is totally techno tho, and bloody great at that.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:49 (twenty years ago)

http://www.coastaltown.nildram.co.uk/porl/noizremix.mp3

― gainfully employed (ex machina), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:53 (twenty years ago)

the good thing about the 'electronica' tag is it encapsulated the vague direction of Underworld, Chemical Brothers etc. wrt their albums all featuring downtempo stuff as well as proper club bangers. the problem remains people associating artists with specific genres as opposed to associating specific tracks by those artists with those specific genres. all this if you're going to bother being so pedantic (and of course, we are) meaning that while Moby is not a techno artist (unlike say Derrick May who i don't think has ever made any non 4/4 beat music that wasn't at least a little abstract in it's approach yet remaining totally danceable - unless the Ghost In The Shell s/t has some?) he has made music that fits the techno ethos/paradigm.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:55 (twenty years ago)

Moby has made techno tracks

Yeah, under his Voodoo Child moniker. I think there's even a Voodoo Child LP, but I bet Eminem didn't know that.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:56 (twenty years ago)

he's made them under the Moby moniker as well

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:58 (twenty years ago)

This is sort of odd: thinking back, that first wave of album dance/electronic acts that came over to the US struck people here as ... well, not "without precedent," but much less precedented than they surely seemed in the UK, where they were the final overground moment of something that already existed. And yeah, my guess is that that's why nobody wanted to call them "dance" -- because the popular American conception of "dance" music at the time, a KLF single or two aside, leaned way more toward r&b sounds, hip-hop sounds, house. The UK early-90s dance moment was technoid; the US early-90s dance moment was black. And Underworld were technoid, not black.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 13:58 (twenty years ago)

the ironing obv. being that the technoid under American noses was black(er than thou)

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 14:01 (twenty years ago)

Electronica is gonna take over. Alt-rock is dead. The Prodigy is playing Woodstock, dude. You should check out AMP sometime.

________________________________________________
"I'm the firestarta, something something firestarta"

- that dude with the weird hair from Prodigy

― artdamagesc.97 (artdamages), Thursday, 2 September 2004 14:02 (twenty years ago)

electronica is basically synonymous with "techno" in Europe. A catch-all term for electronic dance music.

Us yanks came up with it in a marketing sense, I think, because you say "techno" over here and rockist "'Mericans" think "ya'll ready for this" by 2 Unlimited... and gay.

sad but true.

new schaffel!
http://www.juno.co.uk/IP/IF143348-02.htm

― david day (winslow), Thursday, 2 September 2004 15:43 (twenty years ago)

I think "electronica" was appealing for a short while (in the U.S, 1997-98 or so) because it described any music made principally with electronic instruments. It wasn't all dance music and it wasn't all (ugh) "IDM": it was the Chemical Brothers AND Aphex Twin AND Roni Size. Basically, it was the same as just saying "electronic" (except that sounds too clinical somehow).

But few people I knew actually used the term. They DID, however, use "techno" as the catch-all, which confused me at first, since I had a very specific definition of it in the early 90s -- and then my college roomate tried to convince me that he liked techno, when he meant he liked anything on the Warp label.

(Which reminds me: I liked Portishead in early 1995, and was under the impression they were the forefront of some new musical style called "trip-hop," so I bought some cheap compilation called The Trip-Hop Test. Of course, much of it was more emphatically dance-oriented stuff like Crystal Method, and I had a lot of trouble at first getting into what initially sounded to me like TECHNO, a genre I assumed was all but worthless. I knew nothing about electronic music, obviously.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:08 (twenty years ago)

(Oh but the best part of that story is I think I was listening to that record with my brother, and I actually turned to him and said, "But it sounds like ... [shudder] techno!")

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:13 (twenty years ago)

'Go' is from the time the terms house and techno were hand in hand/not so clearly defined.

I don't remember them being used interchangably by anyone who knew a bit about the scene. Around the time of 'Go' I'd say things were either 'house', 'techno', 'hardcore' or 'bleep', or the catch-all 'dance'. There was also 'rave', but I never really liked the term at the time, though I can see its usefulness now.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:19 (twenty years ago)

(and yes, I'm sure 'electronica' was used pre-late-90s-US-usage in the UK the term for IDM. Wasn't there even a compilation called that?)

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:22 (twenty years ago)

If "electronica" is so reviled as a genre tag, then what do people use to tag their underworld, Orb, Chem Bros, Fatboy, Notwist, Four Tet, Fennesz, etc.?
I use "electronic" (no 'a'), and then put the sub genre in the comment tag.
Bueller? Anyone care to share?

― mclaugh (mclaugh), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:46 (twenty years ago)

As Ronan said, 'dance music'. Yeah, you can't dance to some of it. Sometimes I just call that 'electronic'.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:47 (twenty years ago)

underworld, Orb, Chem Bros, Fatboy [Album Oriented Dance Music]

Notwist, Four Tet [Folktronica]

Fennesz [Experimental Electronics]

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:49 (twenty years ago)

I still find "dance music" offensive (not very offensive--I obviously can see why someone immersed in house rave whatever culture would use it) when used in a way that excludes fox trots, waltz, cumbia, salsa, etc. Even if you want to limit it to refer to living dance music: salsa, cumbia, and lots of related dance musics are still alive.

I think "electronica" was appealing for a short while (in the U.S, 1997-98 or so) because it described any music made principally with electronic instruments.

This is how I liked to use it, and still like to use it, but the Ronans of the world won't go along with that, which is okay. I will go along with "electronic dance" or "electronic music" (as long as it doesn't exclude pre-rave precursors).

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:57 (twenty years ago)

my point Alba is that people didn't care so much about that at the time as evident by the compilations from the time with 'rave' or 'hardcore' or 'techno' in the title but featuring anything from GTO to SUAD to KLF to The Shamen to Unique 3 to Orbital to Urban Shakedown to Beltram to Prodigy to Bizarre Inc etc. - I suppose that's the thing. I can't imagine anyone at the time thinking of 'Go' as a house track or maybe not even a techno track (despite the similarity of the sounds in the Woodtick mix with things like Beltram's 'Dominator' remix which to me is quintessential dancefloor/ecstasy-orientated techno but with breakbeat, yet still some distance away from other quintessential techno i.e. 'R Theme'). 'Rave' was as much a catch-all as 'dance' at the time because a huge chunk of the dance music popular at the time (in the UK) fell under the rave banner, and 'bleep' basically just amounted to a slower take on techno as far as i can see ('Sweet Exorcist' etc.)

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:59 (twenty years ago)

Fair point, Rockist. What do you call pre-rave electronic stuff, though?

Stevem - compilation titles are often quite ridiculous, though, esp. the K-Tel variety. I don't know. I was hardly immersed in the scene, but I was aware of the differences.

'Rave' was definitely a more catch-all term, yes, and I think at the time I associated with the K-Tel/tabloid type of approach ("Oh, do you like that rave music?" kind of thing) but in retrospect that was probably just me being snobby.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:03 (twenty years ago)

I really really hate genre categorization, which is why I refuse to organise my music by genre. I can't think of anything more boring that trying to figure out what category Fennesz should belong in.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:04 (twenty years ago)

I have Fennesz in my "Wibble" folder.

― noodle vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:09 (twenty years ago)

Barry, I agree in a way, but actually, especially within dance music (ha!) it can be very useful as a means of facilitating communication about new tracks, and tracking trends. Simon Reynolds argues this point well.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:12 (twenty years ago)

'Rave' too ambiguous but well used. 'Hardcore' was unsatisfying too because much of it wasn't actually as 'full on' as that term suggested (e.g. 'Far Out' tho the breaks were still tuff i guess). Regarding the compilations, I don't think it mattered as much back then/nobody really cared and it was perfectly acceptable lumping all the popular but 'harder' or 'weirder' (in terms of sounds used) tracks of the time together despite different tempos, beats, moods etc. (tempo, mood and sounds used by and large what distinguished house from techno anyway).

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:14 (twenty years ago)

'ARDCORE - ONLY STEVEM KNOWS THE REAL SCORE

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:17 (twenty years ago)

re: 'rave' or 'hardcore' or 'techno'

Virtually everyweek between 1991 - 1993 there were scores of compilations released with the those words in the title.

add in Dance Anthems

other prefixs:
Ultimate ...
Essential...

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:17 (twenty years ago)

Alba don't, you'll make me cry

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:18 (twenty years ago)

Happy Hardcore = Best Genre Evah

― noodle vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:18 (twenty years ago)

Re: compilation eclecticism. I bought a fantastic, tacky-looking Telstar compilation in 1991 called 'Thin Ice' (spin off from the 'Deep Heat' series, I think) that has all sorts of mad things on it - from Digital Underground and Nomad feat. MC Mikee Freedom to 4Hero and Speedy J.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:28 (twenty years ago)

http://www.discogs.com/release/233775

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:28 (twenty years ago)

that comp is so Pete Tong Friday eclectic stylee

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:30 (twenty years ago)

It's fucking brilliant, though.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:31 (twenty years ago)

i heard Thin Ice after borrowing the tape from a friend of my brother's while on a school trip to Spain - great stuff. i also had something called SKinbeat: The First Touch - has aforementioned R-Tyme track on it, with house and hip hop and things like the Oakenfold remix of Mondays 'Hallelujah' on it. Classy.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:31 (twenty years ago)

I really really hate genre categorization, which is why I refuse to organise my music by genre.

I would agree, but genre is a necessary evil when organizing your collection. Without genre, it would be more difficult to keep your xmas songs from playing in June, your Wu Tang from blasting in the lilly white office, and harder to play music when you're just in the mood to hear some "hip-hop" or "jazz" or, dare i say it, "electronic".

― mclaugh (mclaugh), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:32 (twenty years ago)

there are only two types of music - the stuff i approve of, and all that shite you listen to

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:33 (twenty years ago)

Hold up: approving of the term "electronic music" but not the term "electronica" only makes sense if you're either (a) part of the Coalition for More Typing or (b) offended because "electronica" might refer to various bits of non-musical electronica, such as laser-pointers or answering machines. The American use of "electronica" is almost directly equivalent to "electronic music" (just with the caveat that it means electronic music that can't entirely be described in some more specific way, such as techno, IDM, etc.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:43 (twenty years ago)

Which in a sense is the same as the pre-techno Phay way described above -- a net term for "whatever general crap people are making with machines nowadays (that we don't already call something else)."

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:45 (twenty years ago)

Oh, it's totally an irrational taste thing. I think of 'electronica' and I either think of either people being very precious (which comes from the sound of the word itself) or annoying (US media in late 90s talking about Fatboy Slim and the Prodigy).

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:48 (twenty years ago)

I haven't read this entire thread, but I LIKE the term "electronica," and not just because (though admittedly partly because) it pisses off purists. As Rockist Scientist says, the term makes way more sense than "dance music," since using "dance music" to refer to only SOME dance music (not even disco, most of the time lately!) is really, really super fucked. I used to like "techno," but then electronica, er, techno, er, whatever fans started acting like "techno" was a very specific KIND of electronica. And they changed what "house music" meant, too. I have no idea when all this happened; sometime when I wasn't looking, apparently. Anyway, it is an all-encompassing name, sure, but there NEEDS to be an all-encompassing name for all this electronic post-Kraftwerk stuff that people listen to. I mean, "rock" and "metal" and "country" and "r&b" can mean a lot of different kinds of music, too. But if there's a BETTER word out there than "electronica" (which, yeah, the music industry apparently invented, big deal), I would love if somebody would tell me what it is. ("Rave music" maybe? No, I don't think so.)

― chuck, Thursday, 2 September 2004 17:59 (twenty years ago)

"non-metal machine music"

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:01 (twenty years ago)

i like what someone said once, i think it was michael wells, about how if you took Aaliyah's vocals off of a lot of her Tim-produced stuff it's just electronica/IDM (We Need A Resolution was the example used iirc)

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:02 (twenty years ago)

Barry, I agree in a way, but actually, especially within dance music (ha!) it can be very useful as a means of facilitating communication about new tracks, and tracking trends.

In principle, I agree with this statement too. But in practice, genre categorization is a nightmare because there is NO consistency. This is partly because labels mean different things to different people, for example, "minimal" techno means stripped-down (i.e. quiet) to some, and to others it means "tracky" or "repetitive" (irrespective of volume).

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:07 (twenty years ago)

No, it's not perfect, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:12 (twenty years ago)

i like what someone said once, i think it was michael wells, about how if you took Aaliyah's vocals off of a lot of her Tim-produced stuff it's just electronica/IDM

Well, sheesh, all hip-hop is just krautrock/electro with people talking over it!

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:14 (twenty years ago)

No, it's not perfect,
Except that I would argue that it's more a hindrance than a help (by far).

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:17 (twenty years ago)

(Actually, Ronan explains pretty well up above why he doesn't like the term. Sorry, I wrote that fast and managed to forget what I had just read.)

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:27 (twenty years ago)

Fair point, Rockist. What do you call pre-rave electronic stuff, though?

Electronic music or maybe electronica. But usually just electronic mjusic (since that what I called it in the early to mid 80s).

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:28 (twenty years ago)

I still don't feel 100% confident what is even covered under "rave" or "rave culture" and always cross my fingers when I use the term. (As a type of event, it's pretty clear.)

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:30 (twenty years ago)

(Also my first exposure to the terms "acid house" and "rave" were via Genesis P-Orridge; which is kind of like having originally learned math in Philadelphia public schools. I may never fully recover from the shakey foundation.)

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:33 (twenty years ago)

I've never really understood this idea that we don't need genre terms; to me it's like saying that we might as well not have words, becuase nobody understands them quite the same anyway. (That and they cut down on record-store browsing time.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:34 (twenty years ago)

I have an old issue of Option in which they were trying to call old school electronic music (and this was before rave hit, I think, or before Option would have known about it at the very least) "E-music" which is pretty ironic.

x-post: I agree completely with nabisco.

Also I think genre expectations can be a good thing. But I guess I also see them as an inevitable thing.

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:35 (twenty years ago)

which, yeah, the music industry apparently invented, big deal

Which wouldn't be the first time.

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:37 (twenty years ago)

"Intelligent dance music" is obviously the worst genre term ever. I think there should be close to universal agreement on that.

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:38 (twenty years ago)

I think the fact that the word "electronic" precedes "dance music" is quite acceptable and fairly common actually, maybe even implied, I mean the phrase "electronic dance music" does not seem unfamiliar, to me anyway. That said I don't or one doesn't always say "electronic dance music" cos it's longer and often assumed. So yeah I sort of see what Rockist Scientist is saying.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:41 (twenty years ago)

>which, yeah, the music industry apparently invented, big deal
Which wouldn't be the first time. <

The music industry invented "new wave," too!!

― chuck, Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:48 (twenty years ago)

I think "electronica" was appealing for a short while (in the U.S, 1997-98 or so) because it described any music made principally with electronic instruments.

Funny you should put it that way - I recall the one time I interviewed Courtney Pine - 97/98-ish, yes - and his answer to my question about "electronica" starting with the words "Well, in the UK we call it d'n'b" (!?)

― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:49 (twenty years ago)

I remember Exene pouting about how there is no such thing as new wave. (I think it was in the "Decline of Western Civilization" rather than the X documentary but it's been a while.)

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:54 (twenty years ago)

(as long as it doesn't exclude pre-rave precursors).

Sorry - I somehow misread this as "as long as it excludes pre-rave precursors," hence my stupid subsequent question.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 3 September 2004 00:31 (twenty years ago)

I've never been sure how this figured into the equation, but there was a British label called New Electronica. I remember feeling quite bad for them when the American industry picked up the term.

NE put out early Scanner releases and some compilations around 1993/94 featuring Juan Atkins, Underground Resistance, Aphex Twin and Carl Craig. Discogs has them listed as a sub-label of Beechwood Music.

― Nes Chalmers, Friday, 3 September 2004 17:28 (twenty years ago)

genre names are necessary because they give name to the intentions of the artists producing the music and allow them (some) freedom from being unfairly compared to other artists producing music with other sets of intentions. this is part of what allows the kind of relativism that allows us to listen to mahler and 50 cent.

electronica has two meanings, album-oriented dance and album-oriented dance that crossed over in the late 90s. can we find a good synonym for the word corssover and then use that word to describe that music? either that or we can call fatboy big beat and underworld stadium house, etc.

i think the purists have every right to be pissed off. because its not an aesthetic purism (i would assume most of the people that get hard/wet over news of Areal mix cds also have Underworld cds in their collection). its a commitment to certain values. these are the things that get forgotten when music crosses over. and these values are usually better than pop values (not the values of pop music itself, but the process by which that music is disseminated).

outkast's crossover didnt ruin hiphop but it did make it possible for people who dont actually like black people to listen to hip hop (cf the joking about "hey ya" at the RNC and the perception of some of my black friends as to the convictions of that party and the Bushes). similarly, the same group of jocks who listened to underworld in my dorm in boarding school would come into my room and ask me if i was gay simply because i had a vocal house record on.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 3 September 2004 18:38 (twenty years ago)

Since when are genre names only about "intentions" (if that's what you're saying)? They are just as much (if not more) about how the music sounds, and what it does, and what radio stations play it, and where it gets filed in a record store, and what kind of haircuts its fans have. And how do those who name genres even know what the artists' intentions ARE, anyway??

― chuck, Friday, 3 September 2004 18:55 (twenty years ago)

if i seemed to say "genre names are exclusively about intentions" that is not what i mean at all. intentions are part of the much larger whole that you are describing (and also what is assumed in my post too). i dont think in music there is much of a huge gap between inentions (at least musical ones) and the music that results, especially since most artists working in a genre are doing so after the fact, after the work of creating a style musically has happened, and also after the critics have codified that style as well.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 3 September 2004 19:12 (twenty years ago)

I want to make post-electronica.

― mike h. (mike h.), Friday, 3 September 2004 19:17 (twenty years ago)

So Aaron, what values did Outkast and Underworld betray?

― Lukas (lukas), Friday, 3 September 2004 19:26 (twenty years ago)

> i dont think in music there is much of a huge gap between inentions (at least musical ones) and the music that results<

Sure you do, unless you think everybody who tries to make a great record actually winds up making one. Things happen accidentally in music all the time.

― chuck, Friday, 3 September 2004 19:27 (twenty years ago)

none.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 3 September 2004 19:28 (twenty years ago)

Things happen accidentally in music all the time.

Yeah someone should write a book about that.

― artdamages (artdamages), Friday, 3 September 2004 19:32 (twenty years ago)

i wz speaking in the context of genre though. its easy to intend to make a good record and wind up with shit but rarer to intend to make a rock record and wind up with something else entirely (even if the record expands the boundaries of rock by incorporating a lot of non-rock).

god ever since i fell out of the top 35 posters or so on this board a year ago, i feel like everyone thinks i am a troll. though i appreciate the fact that chuck makes me choose my words more carefully.

speaking of diction, lukas i made a point to say "outakst's crossover" instead of simply "outkast" because the music and the crossover are different things. there is nothing intrinsic to outkast, to the record, etc, that demands its widespread popularity. i made a similar distinction in the paragraph above "not the values of pop music itself, but the process by which that music is disseminated".

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 3 September 2004 19:43 (twenty years ago)

So the purists have a right to be pissed that the marketing/distribution machinery pushed Hey Ya! - a kind of non-organic growth?

I didn't think you were trolling - I'm just curious. I have the same instinctual horror when I see people I know to be racist assholes pumping hip-hop out of their speakers. I haven't thought through the issue very well; I normally get to "well, there's nothing wrong with appealing to a broad audience, and the record companies, well, ha ha! that's capitalism!" and turn my brain off.

― Lukas (lukas), Friday, 3 September 2004 19:58 (twenty years ago)

right to be frustrated yes but i dont know what to do about it anyways. i mean i think when something becomes huge a new context is created around it obviously and the original community rarely has that much say in what the new context will be like. there is a contradiction in "generation ecstasy" that sums it up well. reynolds doesnt think much of the rockist stance he had on rave before he actually started raving. he realized how divorced of rave context he had been, how he just didn't "get it", etc. on the other hand, he doesnt think much of detroit purists railing against the new culture british youth created out of underground american dance music. obviously there are differences between the two situation, but there are similarities too.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 3 September 2004 21:04 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.