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.

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