Disco vs Techno

To answer your, I think, key question -- of course techno can be enjoyed outside a clubbing context. I, for one, enjoy it old, new, mutated, revamped, etc. and I find out more and hear more everyday thanks to The Wonders of the Net and other such things. I've been enjoying what I've heard that fits into the description as a whole for about a decade now, and the number of times I've been to anything like a club or event can be counted on both my hands, if that. I say this not because I'm proud (or ashamed) of that fact, it's just my general nature, for better or worse. And it hasn't stopped me from going, "Damn, that sounds good. I'd like to hear more."

If Simon Reynolds does seriously claim that -- *shrug* -- hey, I love the guy, but I must disagree severely. One man's opinion on how to approach music, though, does not an orthodoxy make for the entire field, natch. And of course if you don't like what you hear in general but have given many things a try, then that's a step up from people who write it off without even trying. Relax -- it just sounds like you get your kicks elsewhere, which is no crime. All I'd suggest is separating the field as a whole from the artists you've come across and so far haven't thought much about. There might yet be someone or something along the way that will give you a new perspective on what you're hearing.

I'm not sure if he's dismissing bedroom ravers as opposed to club ravers - the thrust of his attacks has generally been at the people who exalt 'listening' techno over 'club' techno.

You don't need drugs to enjoy techno. You don't kneed clubs to enjoy techno. You will most likely get something different out of the techno than somebody off their face in a club, though: I don't think it's elitist to suggest that.

It's kind of like how, when bands are talked about, you will often get somebody saying, oh, their records never properly caught the live sound. Now there's no way of confirming or denying that if you didn't see them live, you can only talk about the experiences you've had. But while it might be anti-elitist to say "Well, I never saw them live but I know the records must be better" it would also be a bit dim.

There is also, of course, nothing wrong with not liking dance music. It's when people slag it off for, essentially, not being like pop or rock music that dance fans rightly get a bit pissed off.

Here's the Simon Reynolds quote I'm talking about. It's from his "Overrated Records of 1999" page. To be fair, he sounds less harsh than I said he did. He's also talking about critics, but I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to listeners at large, since Moby's album sold pretty well :

"I've often wondered why it is that American rock critics seem to root for Moby. They appear to have decided half-a-decade ago that he was the one that was going to translate the alien aesthetics and protocols of electronic dance culture into albums that you could listen to like regular rock records (ie. no attitude shift or change in listening habits required, no journeys to dark, noisy, drug-infested clubs to experience the site-specific reality of the culture)."

Of course, I love Moby's Play *sigh*. Probably the fact that Reynolds is a former guitar-rock fan makes him more vehement about this sort of thing than the average techno specialist, who most likely couldn't care less what people outside the scene think. It's like ex-smokers, I guess.

I remember the Reynolds piece you're talking about. I think it was part of a rant he had against "rockist" writing, actually. He said something chiding rock critics for not having the guts to meet techno on its own terms, in a club, to hear it in its proper context.

My guess (and it IS a guess) is you'll find very, very few people who are into techno (and here I'm using techno the way you did, as an umbrella for electronic dance music) in a big way that didn't go to clubs heavily at some point in their lives. The difference between techno and disco is that disco is pop music, straight up, while much techno is something else. Hooks, melody, etc. aren't neccesarily going to be there with techno (though they are with Checmical Bros. and Fatboy Slim.) To that end, the music seems to me designed for the dance floor. And then, once someone has heard and loved it in that context, they can go on and enjoy listening to it anywhere. This is all pure speculation from someone who is mostly ignorant of the dance end of the electronic music spectrum. And a Donna Summer fan.

I don't think techno has that much to do with clubbing anymore. If you want to see Oakenfold, or Paul Van Dyk, yes, but there are so many other styles (& other venues) to investigate. For me, seeing Underworld live was a life-changing experience.

Rather than clubs, I would suggest looking for outdoor parties/festivals to attend. There you're more likely to be inspired by the music, and find your groove quicker (endorphins from dancing are still the best rave drug).

Actually, disco was initially as hermetic as you see techno being. Probably much more so, in fact. In the early seventies, you couldn't let disco just "happen" to you, because by and large it was cultural phenomena happening under the mass media's nose. You really *had* to be an initiate of a certain lifestyle to know about all the right parties, record stores and obscure anthems that the mainstream knew and cared little about. To take one example, one of the first truly great discos, The Loft, was a purely invitation-only event that took place at the DJ's apartment. There also disco golden-agers out there who feel that once disco became a mass phenomena and lost much of its secretive (but essentially "democratic") intimacy, it was ruined, it became a cliche full of cookie-cutter hits and rhythmless polyester droids.

I don't think it's *necessary* to go clubbing or taking E to like the music. To say otherwise is to completely against the same old skool belief of that lovers of The Great Album and The Great Books of The Western World share: if the artifact's any good, it can thrill even if far removed from its original context. It's a belief that any reasonably eclectic music-lover in the early twenty-first century (including Reynolds himself) follows to some extent or another -- chances are you probably don't listen to jazz in a filthy whorehouse, gamelan in Java, Phil Spector on AM radio, or Bach on period instruments, but you still love the fuck out of those musics anyway.

Yet I think having a lot of experience dancing in public has helped me frame techno music in a very valuable way. I don't necessarily mean clubbing or raves, either -- the dance parties I used to go to at my tiny liberal arts college every week have become an invaluable reference point in my understanding of disco and post-disco musics. But speaking from experience, simply inundating oneself with product (read: using Napster) has probably helped just as much. (And who says my computer *isn't* a proper context for techno, anyway?)

It always seemed to me that Reynolds more argues that you can't understand techno without understanding the microculture of raves, and the attendant drug scenes, not that you can't appreciate it. And on that count, I think he's right. Also, that if you don't like techno, confronting it on its own terms just might change your mind.

Firstly I'd point out that most techno in the purest sense of the word actually seems to me to be bedroom music for people who *used* to go to clubs a lot, but anyway...

While Reynolds does tend to go on a bit too much about the value of taking bad trips in dodgy illegal clubs, I think the point is more that American critics in general have been equally as snobbish in demanding that techno artists make "real" music, especially when it comes to exalting Moby for trawling through some old blues records *as opposed to* just making populist dance music for, y'know, the masses.

I always got the feeling that "faceless techno crap" referred not so much to dance music's elitist obscurity as the perception of its all-pervasive spread. Like with Australia during its "White Australia" years, when Asians were referred to as the "yellow peril", connoting some huge inhuman tide sweeping over the country.

Elitism can be about ignorance as much as familiarity, right? Surely the "aristocracy" are just as defined by their distaste for working in the fields as they are by their intimate knowledge of palaces?

------- Can techno (which I use as a generic term for all post-house dance music) be enjoyed out of its clubbing context ? -------

I remember at the time of getting into techno/rave/house, thinking something along the lines of "brilliant music, but would you like to listen to it at home". Well, 10 years later it almost seems like i have been listing to nothing but dance music. Of course it works brilliantly outside of the club, all those neat mechanic rhythms are tailor-made for any activity involving motion and speed (driving a car, riding a bike, playing videogames).

A slight problem with the Moby vs populism argument is that it's hard to imagine a dance CD more populist and loved by hundreds of thousands than "Play" - many of whom may even have danced to it.

This actually points to a key thing about Reynolds - he's not a populist. He's not interested in dance music as a mass or even social activity. He seems interested in club-based scenes only inasmuch as they have "the vibe". So for example when he was celebrating the multiracial class roots and council-estate vibe of '94-vintage jungle, immeasurably more working-class kids across Britain and indeed Europe were queueing up for handbag house clubs, listening to music which SR, in Energy Flash, derides as "mere disco".

Now I'm not suggesting that SR wasn't right in his preferences or that popular scenes should be uncritically celebrated, but his elitism - if that's what it is - is of a different strain to the you- must-be-pilled-up-to-hear-it-properly line of thinking.

I agree Tom. i'll add this thought on SR. He sometimes overrates "what is written" on some subjects. For instance his disdain for the British music press and their favorite cover DJ's (Muzik et al.) gets in the way of some cheestastic sounds. You see Dave Clarke and Laurent Garnier are populists and indeed brilliant for getting E'd out of your head. Same with late Underground Resistance which isn't that jazzy and useless (Red Planet's 'Stardancer'is a massive anthem, almost built for enhancing those E-chills). But then again i don't read Muzik ;)

Same thing with Moby, who cares what some sorry-ass American rock- crits think, let them rot with their Dylan, GBV and endless Neil Young reviews. I agree that "Play" is utter shite, except for "Honeyz", which is very cheesy, sound-wise very effective (put old voices on repeat + enter beat + enter piano = banging tune!) and better than anything Fatboy Slim came up with on his last record. Anyway it's also on the things that make SR very enjoyable.

Interesting point about SR's concentration on what is written, Omar. I thought his recent piece in The Wire on roots reggae was an interesting history of the UK rock press's take on Jamaican music over the last 30 years. As an overview of the music, though, it was pretty hopeless. Unfortunately, it presented itself more as the latter than the former.

Tim

Tim - in fact, unless I've been missing something (which is entirely possible), in North America, techno is nowhere near as pervasive as you make it out to be. With a handful of exceptions (one of them being Moby's Play, easily one of the biggest techno sellers here - if it's techno at all), techno has NOT reached the *masses* over here. Dance music for the masses here would be something like, I don't know, Eiffel 65 or something. And if you want to bring class into it, well, I would think that an average working class person, with a job and kids and all, would find it extremely hard to be a regular participant in the clubbing/raving/partying lifestyle for very long (I know *I* wouldn't have the energy, and I don't even have kids) That's part of why I accused Reynolds of elitism - that emphasis on enjoying the music only in that environment just cuts too many people out of the picture. Having said that, I'm sure being there and using the right chemicals *enhances* the experience, makes it fuller, more vibrant and might make it easier to enjoy the music outside of that context afterwards, as Mark points out. I only have a problem with the notion that not being interested in checking out the context (for whatever reason - hell, I hardly ever go to *rock* shows) is equal to being a "sorry-ass" Neil Young-worshipping fool (not that I have a problem with Neil Young - you can enjoy his music without sniffing cocaine, moving to California and hanging out with David Crosby - one cheap shot deserves another, Omar ;) ).

heheh Patrick, good one! It wasn't really a cheap shot, though (at least not that much). I wouldn't equal "not checking out the context" with being a sorry-ass NY-worshipping fool. But: totally ignoring dance music comes closer to that mark. Not only from the rock press, but maybe even more damning (and backward): the jazz press (but okay most of them haven't even come to terms with electric Miles).

Oh, that must be "British dance press". ;) Tim, I didn't like The Roots article either. At the end it got interesting, but I don't think it really succeeded in presenting an alternative for afro- futurism. If you're taking on Toop/Penman/Eshun, you must come up with something really earth-shattering. Also, I loathe "Heart of the Congo's" ;)

Hello all! An interesting thread, and not just cos some of you are trying to work out what my position is on this topic. (I should point about first that my ideas are in constant flux, hence the frequent inconsistencies, contradictions, reversals). Anyway, I'm stepping out of lurkerdom to offer a few comments and clarifications.

Re. the site-specific nature of dance music.... More than taking tons of drugs and losing it on the dancefloor in the thick of a lost- it crowd (which'll certainly help you grasp the appeal), I think the real point here is that with a lot of dance music, much of the sonic content is barely audible on a domestic hi-fi. I've had this experience with house 12inches I've bought: at home, the kick drum can sound tinny and weak and irritatingly monotonous, but in a club, through a massive system, the pumping monotony becomes compelling because it's so physically, viscerally overwhelming... the kick becomes this vast environmental pulse that you're inside. Same applies to jungle: this guy I know was sceptical about techstep and then it turned out he'd been playing the No U Turn comp on his little boom-box in the kitchen, hardly any low-end response. You're not going to get much idea what it feels like when the bass-drop comes, the way the boom permeates your body, the rush that goes through the crowd. See, a lot of dance tracks are like components, they only work to the utmost capacity when plugged into this matrix of massive sound/DJ combining all the best bits of different tracks/up-for-it crowd/bright lights. That's one of the reasons you get this sort of Gnostic refrain running through dance cultures--"this is for those who know", "hardcore you know the score". Crucial distinction: it's not elitist, but it is tribal.

Having said all that, I know a fair few folk who are well into even quite hardcore dance sounds and have little or no experience of the music as a club culture. And certain kinds of music sound better outside the "proper" environment -- I prefer 2step as pirate radio, you can get the mixing and the MC-ing, but you don't have to deal with the obnoxiousness of the UK garage scenesters and their horrible clothes.

Re. populism. Tom is right--I'm not one. But I don't think "elitist" is a fair description either. If a lot of people like something that's sonically radical, it definitely adds an extra frisson -- I got a big buzz out of "Firestarter" topping the US charts, for instance. In terms of dance music, there's also a certain kind of energy that's generated when thousands of people go mental to something, that's different to the energy you get from a few hundred head-nodding types in an intimate club. I prefer the former kind of energy; quite a few people seem to find it disturbing or unseemly or even proto-fascist or something. But generally I don't think there's any connection between being hugely popular and being interesting.

To be honest, I don't really understand the populist argument. If we're under some obligation to "reckon with" or "engage" with stuff just because it's the people's choice, then we shouldn't even be obsessing over music. Why not write about angling, the Number One leisure activity in the UK? (A fantasy project of mine was to write about "uncool" but immensely popular leisure and entertainment--ice skating spectaculars, puzzle books, knitting, fishing). Even in music terms, the populist argument ought to lead you to Andrew Lloyd Weber or Celine Dion. In terms of hit rate, the cruel truth is that some of the biggest "pop" acts ever are Iron Maiden and Queen. You can define "pop" as the thrilling economy and instant-ness of the three minute single, but Dire Straits got to Number One with a seven minute single. See, people who develop a "pop aesthetic" are never really affirming the totality of everything that sells--which is the only real definition of pop music---but particular fractions of it. As time goes by, that idea of "pop" inevitably gets more and more out of step with the market reality--Saint Etienne is a case in point. Which is not to invalidate the various never-never dreampops cultivated by pop aesthetes, whether they're making music or writing.... And there's definitely a strategic usefulness to the populist stance when it comes to attacking various snobby connoisseurial elites.

Of course, there's no such thing as "the people" anyway -- there's lots of peoples and lots of different populisms.

Whoa daddy. Excellent points about populism there, Simon, and I agree with all of 'em. I brought the elitism charge not as a popularity = quality thing, but more because I'm uncomfortable with the idea that critics or anybody else have this *responsibility* to not only pay attention to but ENJOY a musical genre that isn't trying to reach anybody outside the clubbing audience. It's not entirely a rock-vs- dance issue. I dislike death metal for reasons that are probably quite similar.

It's a little like indie bands doing their damnedest to sound obscure and keep the mainstream audience away, then complaining that said audience doesn't pay attention and has shitty tastes. It's just weak, and that's where the elitism comes in.

If techno is essentially cult music best appreciated under a particular set of circumstances, that's cool with me. Not everything has to try to reach a large audience. But then don't blame people who prefer Moby (or whoever), who does try to communicate to people outside the in-crowd, in ways that they can understand.

tim, i think everyone respects your opinion. over the years, you've proven yours to be a voice well worth listening to. so it's with great embarrassment -- for you, for all of us -- that i say there's really no need for you to pretend to be simon reynolds.

oh, yes, i know you love him and it *shows*, but really, as tim finney, your opinions already carry quite a bit of heft. this charade demeans you, my friend. it DEMEANS you.

anyway, to contribute to the thread at hand. i listen to a lot of drum n' bass nowadays that makes me say, "wow, i bet that sounds great in a club." unfortunately, i find myself thinking this more and more, which is a shame, though perhaps i'm just not hearing the right stuff. i have heard enough great stuff, though, to say that i don't believe it to be a conscious attempt on the behalf of musicians to alienate the fellow who doesn't get out to the clubs -- i mean, how does it better an artist to ostracize a potential audience unless they're, like, political, like the manics who i heard say the other day on mtv, or rather a friend of friend who said they heard them say this, that they'd rather have children die than have an american buy their album. which works well as a political statement and as an explanation as to why they never broke america.

*coughs*

Personally, Patrick I think you should get your arse to a dance club. Taking E is completely unimportant..Nothing beats hearing house/techno out of a good sound system...

Fred, are you making a joke about Simon or me? I have a suspicious feeling it's me...

What you said about d&b reminds me about your comments on Hidden Agenda's "Dispatch #2", and the long sections of repetitiveness making it difficult to like. For me that sudden switch to rhythmic assymetricality halfway through wouldn't work *without* the long 2-stepping build-up, and I've always thought of it as one of the last gasps of creative techstep, before the descent into one-bar loops.

It's hard often to decide whether a track relies on repetitiveness due to a lack of ideas or whether it takes a repetitive structure and then stretches it, but for "Dispatch #2" I'm definitely leaning towards the latter. Of course, walking around in the city with it on headphones is definitely preferable to listening on a computer....

To Patrick and Tom, I was using "populist" to refer to the intentions of the artist as much as anything else. I think of Play as being less populist than "Go" because the latter was written to please a large audience immediately, while Play initially seemed like a failed curiosity, which then blew up as part of a joint coalition between the media and product placement. As you've said Tom, all that is popular is not necessarily pop, though I think you can make a better case for Moby than Van Morrison.

To Patrick specifically, I wasn't intentionally suggesting a class divide between Moby fans and dance music fans (even if you could define them as separate groups). "Masses" just refers to the nature of the intake of club music in a large social context, which I reckon is perceived to be inferior to the private epiphany of the bedroom album (I'm thinking here of that scene in Velvet Goldmine when the fanboy/journalist guy gets all flustered over the latest faux-Bowie album) eg. "it's good for a dance but it doesn't *mean* anything".

I think you're right, Simon.

The concept of "the people" is a nostalgic 60s idea based around a concept of "unity" in music which was itself defended from the post- war idea of "unity" in UK / US society generally. Doubtless it's still tempting for many people, but it shouldn't be invoked as justification for liking or disliking certain music, because as you say its literal meaning takes us out of the universe of music entirely. These days there are as many populisms as there are Top 40 records, I think; once you get below that it does indeed stop being a strand of populism.

tim, you guessed it. it was a joke at your expense, and i have no apologies for you.

anyhoo, yes, i'd agree with you that "dispatch #2" probably ends up working well because of the repetitiveness of the first "movement." thinking about it now, there are many songs that work much better because of what sometimes might be considered a dull intro -- isaac hayes' "by the time i get to phoenix" to me is all the better for his opening monologue, building suspense, etc. and, yes, i'd have to agree that most everything sounds better while walking, the combination of the two often leading to revelatory moments, e.g. myself and the velvet underground on a hike through nyc.

oh, and a high-level dance album that will appeal to even casual listeners: daft punk's _discovery_. i'm quite interested in what mr. reynolds will make of it. at times on the album, one would be hard- pressed to call it "dance." nevertheless, i find it quite a breath of fresh air, a la basement jaxx, an album which, admittedly, i haven't listened to in quite sometime leading me to believe that i enjoyed it more in theory than in practice, but that may well be another thread.

Well, thanks for all your genuinely enlightening point of views. I'm still not about to start clubbing - I'm too tired, too antisocial and I can't dance - and my ancient PC can't handle mp3's, so I better forget about Napster. But I just read the Disco Critics Survey thing on rockcritics.com, and dammit, I REALLY want to hear some techno. I'd be thrilled to bits if anyone could put together a mix tape for me. If any conversion ensues, I'll make sure to credit whoever made it :).

I could make a mixed CDR for you... email me if you're interested.

I personally love techno. I started producing it 3 years before I ever even went to my first club/rave. I really don't care about any of the trends/drugs that supposedly follow this music. I am so into electronic music that I don't waste my time with non-electronic music, and have no wish to. Why listen to the sounds of the past, when we have the totally unexplored sounds of the new? To me music is about progression, exploration, and innovation. So to answer your question, yes this music can be enjoyed outside of the whole rave/drug experience. More so, in alot of ways. I view the electronic music culture as having different followings. You have the clubber/raver, who is typically looking for a drug fascination, wanting to dance and express, meet new people and live a lifestyle based on this. Then you have the techno producer/enthusiast,hackers,people who basically anjoy spending their lives in front of a computer, people consumed with the thought of advancing knowledge and communication, interested in new technology and ways of using it to produce new expression and ideas. This to me are the two extremes of the new digital culture. I am of the latter, and I produce the music that fuels the former. I believe we all signify a whole together, a new culture enjoying and producing new ways of thought, humans absorbing the fruits of their advancement through the tools they have built to bring it about, an age of learning and innovation. So to me this is what this music signifies, and is the most fascinating concept I have ever discovered, and I am extremely proud and happy to be a part of it. Forget the stereotypical nonsense (including what I just said:), and try and hear this music with a truly open mind and see its seemingly infinite potentials.

My love of disco and techno really came together in 97, but that might have had something to do Daft Punk's Homework. They redefined house: more paletable for the techno purists without losing the indulgence of disco.