"But You Need To Be In A Club To Appreciate It..."

Who makes that club argument on those terms?

Actually, FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, IT'S NOT ABOUT HMV ALBUM DANCE IT'S ABOUT NON HMV ALBUM DANCE MUSIC.

Ok. There is a major major major difference between the albumdance music and its club derivatives. A sonic difference. I'm speaking in terms of house/breaks since that's what I know about. Club music is harder, the drums sound cheaper (not always a bad thing). It's generally WAY more minimal, alot more subtle, way less hooks, though having said all this it's probably alot more immersive in the end. You won't ever ever get LOTS of tracks until you've heard them alot, and, I think, heard them alot in the right context. Maybe you could download loads of techno and listen to it all for 10 hours and get to like it. But I'm not sure. Afterall it's MEANT to be danced to.

I'm suggesting that clubbing regularly changes the way you consume music. That's not quite the "you have to be in a club" argument, but I resent that being ridiculed a little because being in a club is NOT NO WAY NEVER the same as going to see a band live, for a million reasons which I presume any fool can work out.

And sorry if that sounds cranky, but I tried to make that point on the other dance thread yesterday and then John Darnelle came out with some total utter bollox which was obviously coming from someone who didn't appreciate or know much about dance music, and right now I'm meant to be writing about bloody Chomsky so tension is high.....

What does HMV stand for? Why is this a lie? Isn't some music made expressly to dance to?

Did I ask too many questions at once?

"95% of all music sounds better in a club, mainly because you're drunk, and it's a quasi-communal experience. "

not true! it's because it's very loud! (i don't drink and i don't give a fuck about "communal exp.")

Ro, i actually had some sympathy for what John said on that other thread.

i dont necessarily think its clubs that change the way you appreciate, but the format rather than context has an influence. i first heard dance music on local pirate stations, and that made me really excited, i couldn't wait to be old enough to go to raves. when i was able to go to these things it was just as good as i hoped it would be (although those little white fellas made it even better of course).

now, of course, its difficult to know how i would view it without clubbing experience. does exposure to the club/e vibe alter the way you perceive it, so that you hear it through that filter afterwards? actually yes, maybe it does, serotonin triggers. so i guess i'm saying yes and no at the same time. hmm

If you have to 'appreciate' something to like it then you don't need it in your life

and, then, isn't the subtext, that context and personal experience is important. your own life changing how you view music. that, i can certainly agree with...

I've a friend who says taking his first pill, about 2 months or so ago, has radically altered his listening. It's actually one of my best friends and he's always had quite an open mind about music. There's lots of interesting examples of how his favourite songs on certain albums have changed but it's sort of off topic I fear.

To go back to the main point, in the short space after I started to love clubbing and before I took E regularly, I noticed my listening change. I suppose giving examples from myself to support my argument may be a little suspect but I know I never really enjoyed mix albums properly until I'd been out clubbing alot. I know I always enjoyed the likes of the Chems etc, because they're albumdance, they have nice production or SOMETHING, I can't articulate the difference but it's pretty fundamental I think and as I said I'll try to do it on my blog at some stage.

Here we go again. "Drugs alter listening habits in a lot of interesting ways." Every succeeding generation of soon-to-be mozarella-brained burnouts adds another 5 years to Phish's career span.

Well if you can't see that I genuinely think it's the music aswell, then you're obviously drawing your own parallels........

Dance music's great. Drugs are great. I don't like the insinuation a lot of people make that drugs and (certain)music MUST be intertwined. Drugs are to make the rest of life bearable. Music accompanied by drugs is turned into the stuff of the 'rest of life'. Drug users turn everything they see into furniture. "Where's Your Child"? Devouring its parent.

I love your rants Dave but from my own personal experience I have to mainly agree with Ronan. ONLY... I don't know if it's specifically the drug (in this case ecstacy) that does it so much as the experience of being on the drug. The first time people take E is usually - but not exclusively - also the first time they spend up to eight hours dancing with an idiot grin on their face totally lost in the patterns and details and rhythms of the music. So maybe it's not the drug but rather the experience the drug opens you up to that is having an effect. Once you've danced for eight hours etc. the possibility of focusing your entire attention on repetitive dance music for long stretches, and listening for how the music affects the music-body relationship (even when you're not dancing) seems much less unlikely. And of course the more times you experience this on E the easier it becomes to experience it when you're not.

Obviously it's totally bogus and inaccurate to say that the drug alone automatically changes your perspective. For one, there's heaps of other types of music that are designed for a certain type of focus but aren't associated with drugs. And secondly, there are heaps of listeners who quite obviously "get" the music who have never tried ecstacy in their life (nor been to many clubs, for that matter). In that sense maybe a "dance music ear" is an overdetermined result of which ecstacy is one potential determinant factor... a la chocolate and obesity, family history and cancer, the base and the superstructure ;-)

Also you find alot of people claim that repetition is what puts them off dance music. But this is clearly one barrier which is removed while under the influence of ecstacy.

I do and have always thought it's not just the drug, as I say I noticed my listening change before I ever took it but after I first began clubbing regularly.

I think the real question is, "Does music have a context?"

And the answer is yes. You can't really appreciate Britney unless you're a 12 year old girl sitting in a bedroom covered with posters of pop idols (or a 45 year old bachelor...)

But are 12 year olds APPRECIATING Britney, or are they simply LIKING her? "Appreciation" infers a bit of cognitive reasoning that I'm not sure 12 year olds engage in, or could even care about. On drugs in loud music club == 12 years old, in a sense. Being a 12 year old also == getting caught up in the moment (w/out the help of any social lubricants). Inhibitions unbutton a bit, mental faculties go to the bar for some shots, and you have the good time.

This applies to ALL music in ALL contexts, by the way. It's not whether the context fits the music so much as whether the context fits the listener.

Here we go again. "Drugs alter listening habits in a lot of interesting ways." Every succeeding generation of soon-to-be mozarella-brained burnouts adds another 5 years to Phish's career span.
Hahahahaha. The real irony here, is that Phish's career is just the Grateful Dead on some perverse kind of cross-generational life-support.

(or a 45 year old bachelor...)
Brrrrr...

In the mid-eighties, I routinely spent 6+ hours Thursday through Sunday dancing from 10 p.m. 'til somewhere between two and four-thirty a.m. During these times, Dead or Alive and Colourbox often seemed like great stuff. I had such wonderful musical experiences dancing to that stuff. Often, I was quite high. To argue that since I enjoyed myself a lot doing all that the music must be good is so narcissistic as to beggar the imagination. If I had a good time cleaning house while reruns of "Webster" ran on a nearby television, it doesn't mean "Webster" was a good show. Music that requires a specialized context is weak-ass. That is all.

Well the question is whether dance music in general "requires" a specialized context. While experience of that context definitely helps, and in some cases does limit understanding of the music, I think it would be a vast overgeneralization to apply that characterization to all of it.

Sure sure. Ronan's attack suggested that I don't know whereof I speak. In fact I do, and I still think "you can't understand it unless you've done lots of E" is adolescent crap.

And Dead or Alive are still great!

And there is no music that doesn't have a specialized context!

I really should do some work now...

I agree, if the E argument is your best one then you're on shaky ground.

I don't believe in 'ears'

Webster = impossible to appreciate unless you've been lodged in a dumb waiter.

For that matter you can't really say you've understood what Mercyful Fate are all about until you've been up for three days on peanut butter crank and there's nothing to eat in the house except lettuce and sunflower seeds, the sight of which makes you sick even though there's really nothing properly wrong with them, and so you're subsisting on water and coffee and the Marlboro Lights you swiped from a broken cigarette machine in the laundry room of your building. Under which circumstances Mercyful Fate reveal themselves as not only the perfect theme music for the "Webster" reruns but for "Small Wonder" as well.

Small Wonder = especially appreciable if you've ever spat paper messages out of your mouth.

I've been listening to Mercyful Fate wrong this WHOLE time! *cries and runs from room*

You can't really appreciate Britney unless you're a 12 year old girl sitting in a bedroom covered with posters of pop idols (or a 45 year old bachelor...)
You're being ironic here, right? Maybe I am a 12 year old girl trapped in a 28 year old body? That would explain a lot. I like Britney Spears but on another level than the (real) 12 year old.
One doesn't need to do anything. Experiences changes your perception. I don't think one needs to do drugs or be in a club to enjoy dance but it certainly changes the way you interpret it. Dance is body music and my living room + stereo will never be able to replicate what I feel on the dance floor. The same goes for concerts: it is way different from how I listen to the record which contains the same songs.

Not ironic, no. Just pointing out that Britney is aimed at a certain audience (or in her case, two audiences), just like club music. Of course any music that's half-decent (or probably just any music) is never confined to that audience.

I thought this thread would be about the necessity of belonging to Rotary or Kiwanis.

The second paragraph of the original question proves precisely why the argument IS valid. Claro que si?

I believe HMV stands for His Master's Voice, 'cuz the logo is RCA Victor's "little nipper". Did RCA have any involvement with the HMV chain?

Phish doesn't sound like the Dead.

What is peanut butter crank, and should I try some?

Thank you Sean. My question was completely lost in the shuffle.

John! Wake up call!

This is the FOURTH TIME I'm clarifying to you and whoever else. I, RONAN, DID NOT AT ANY POINT MENTION ECSTACY UNTIL ANYONE ELSE DID. ON THE CONTRARY I SAID YOU NEED TO BE CLUBBING REGULARLY TO UNDERSTAND A GOOD PORTION OF THE MUSIC I LIKE. I EXPLAINED THIS SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY. I DID SAY ALTERNATIVELY YOU COULD DOWNLOAD ALL THE OBSCURE CLUBDANCE TRACKS AND LISTEN TO THEM AT HOME AND IT'S LIKELY YOU'D GET TO LIKE THEM EVENTUALLY. BUT THE BEST WAY TO GET INTO THEM IS OBVIOUSLY TO GO CLUBBING. Since the sound system is better etc.

And I apologise if you did once know what you were talking about on this subject. But you can apologise for suggesting I actually said "you need to have done lots of e" AT ANY POINT.

jesus I'd swear I'm speaking hebrew, if I'm that inarticulate just mock me for that. As I say, no mention of ecstacy on my part for quite a while.

finally a live band like phish or whatever can't be held up against a dj set since a dj set is a person playing records and obviously the live/mix cd relationship is radically different to the live/live performance one.

"in the short space after I started enjoying clubbing and before I started taking e regularly I noticed my listening change".

I mean for fuck sake it's the millionth time I've clarified I wasn't saying one thing and yet just like last night you seem to think I am saying it.

SORRY I'M NOT CONNECTING ECSTACY MORE WITH DANCE MUSIC AND FACILITATING YOUR FUNNY RANT ABOUT HOUSEWORK. Go to fucking global undergrounds message board or something.....

Context has *everything* to do with how you listen to music. If this weren't true, you'd throw on that Britney disc that somber rainy morning you have to go to a grandparent's funeral. You'd put on Dead Can Dance just before going out with your friends on a Friday night. You'd put on Merzbow to seduce that special someone. My point is: you don't have to be dancing to appreciate dance music so much as you have to be in the mood for dancing to appreciate it. And if this mood is come to by witnessing other people gyrating, or by chemical intake, so be it, because the mood you need to appreciate other genres of music was also caused by factors outside the music. Music is symbiotic with the enviornment in any form.

Ronan: "YOU NEED TO BE CLUBBING REGULARLY TO UNDERSTAND A GOOD PORTION OF THE MUSIC"

I disagree - I understand the music just fine and I am not a reguar clubber and haven't been for a decade. That I don't like it much is another

Context is fine, empathising with a musics suitability for that context if fine, 'understanding' is back to the ears thing again. I don't do ears.

You'd put on Dead Can Dance just before going out with your friends on a Friday night.

You're implying I haven't?

Ronan - please purchase "Chill Out" by the KLF and listen to it for three or four days. "I like clubbing so therefore it's massively different from seeing a live band" is horseshit plain and simple. The DJ/band dynamics aren't so discreet as to obviate comparison entirely or even partially, really. In re: "Once knew what I was talking about": in fact I still do. That your own point of view strikes me as myopic does not mean that mine must therefore be incorrect. I am glad that you enjoy dancing. You gotta have something to allieviate the STRESS

However yes I do apologize for saying that you said "You need to have done lots of E to understand dance music" though all your postings prior to the all-caps rant do in fact seem rather sympathetic to that position i.e. yer friend whose eyes have been opened by E etc.

My big question is, what does this "greater understanding gained through clubbing" consist in? Can it really be proven that someone *really understands* dance music, or any other music for that matter? I just don't like to use really metaphysically suspect terms like these, especially when they are used to imply the relative worth of people's opinions. (Although I admit it's really really hard to avoid those kind of terms when talking about music.)

But bnw, in trying to show the importance of context (which is a great point), you seem to be prescribing contexts for various types of music, and that won't always work (as illustrated by Mr. Ragget*T*'s objection).

I'm waiting for all the club doubters to suggest that Star Wars is just as good on VHS.

Familiarity has something to do with it. How many times have you seen Star Wars at home versus in a theater?

Actually, I think this whole argument comes down to the word "immersive," as used above. Dance music is an immersive medium, but not in the senses a lot of people are used to (i.e., subtle, languid immersion) -- the fact that the sound and the movement are so aggressively up-front and demanding, I think, leads some people to want to listen to it in a different, more immediate, and possibly less rewarding way. (NB: it's immediate as well, which is the great paradox and everything that's interesting about it: only once you've allowed yourself to become immersed does that subtle immediacy come to the fore).

The sense in which I agree with Ronan is that as dance music is at its roots geared to a club experience, the experience of going clubbing can indeed provide sort of window into the mode of listening in which dance music is going to be most rewarding. E isn't completely a red herring, in that it amplifies that: standing sober (or unfamiliar) in a club tends to mean that more of your mind is devoted to the non-musical aspects of the place -- watching people, talking to people, whatever -- whereas E (and other drugs) can sort of erase that and leave you un-self-conscious and largely oblivious to everything but the pure fact of dancing and responding to the music. This isn't to say that any of this is necessary to getting everything there is to get out of dance music, only that it sort of tutors you in terms of how you're meant to be enjoying it.

Arguments against "appreciation," I think, are complete bunk: there are clearly different "modes" of listening to things, different things to pay attention to and different frames of thought. These modes are also completely individual, and to say that we shouldn't bother to acquire other modes that we don't current "get" -- or to say that we shouldn't have to "get" it, it's just crap -- would make everything crap. For me, it would make 90% of jazz crap, as I've consistently failed to master whatever mode of listening allows people to get out everything that jazz artists are putting in to their music. Similarly, the jazzbo doesn't "get" metal; the aboriginal Australian doesn't "get" Christian country; the businessman in Nairobi doesn't "get" punk.

Obviously a dismissive "oh, you have to go clubbing" is not a very good retort to someone who doesn't appreciate this type of music. I suppose the rephrasing I'd offer would be the far more tedious: "There's a particular mode of listening to this stuff which makes it much more rewarding, and perhaps you're not listening in quite that way -- and perhaps going clubbing (and perhaps taking E) would give you a bit more of a sense of that mode."

Also this is why dance music is basically the most irritating music in the world to be around if you don't want to hear it: if you don't want to let it completely take you over, it's still going to beat you about the head and try to force you into submission. It's like an S&M dom: if you're not going to give yourself up to it and have fun, it's not going to make a very good impression.

But bnw, in trying to show the importance of context (which is a great point), you seem to be prescribing contexts for various types of music, and that won't always work (as illustrated by Mr. Ragget*T*'s objection).

That Raggett is just a troublemaker. But you are right about context being more personal then universal.

ronan is correct and john darnielle is being (wilfully) stupid

Firstly this appears to be a tangent you've gone off on based on not having any real response to what was the argument.

But let's go on it!

A live band, no matter how much they stretch themselves or put on a show or how different their sonic show is, cannot be compared to a DJ who can play any record he wants at any time, or mix two together at any time, or sample another at any time. I'm not saying either is better per se. I'm just saying your Phish comparison doesn't really stand up. The DJ is mixing other people's music together, trying to create some kind of atmosphere or sense of genres, whereas the live band is trying to create an atmosphere within their own music. Live shows and DJ sets are different species entirely.

And re:your KLF example, I think if you look at the beginning of the thread you'll notice me specifying this debate was not about albumdance......or did you neglect to read that aswell?

Finally there's nothing in my arguments which say you need to have done E to "get" the music. Saying my friend's listening changed after doing E is not the same as saying "my friend didn't get dance music and then HEY PRESTO HE TOOK E AND NOW HE'S AT GATECRASHER EVERY WEEK!"

Any more tangents to go on?

'Context has *everything* to do with how you listen to music. If this weren't true, you'd throw on that Britney disc that somber rainy morning you have to go to a grandparent's funeral. You'd put on Dead Can Dance just before going out with your friends on a Friday night. You'd put on Merzbow to seduce that special someone'

I'll raise Ned one and say that anybody who doesn't do this is fucking boring.

In re drugs - condemn more and understand less

'These modes are also completely individual, and to say that we shouldn't bother to acquire other modes that we don't current "get" -- or to say that we shouldn't have to "get" it, it's just crap -- would make everything crap'

And what if it IS crap? IS it better for people to say they understand something when they really don't than it is for them to admit they hate it uncategorically? Besides, entire religions and philosophies can be dismissed as 'crap', so I don't see why music genres should be sacred.

"And re:your KLF example, I think if you look at the beginning of the thread you'll notice me specifying this debate was not about albumdance......or did you neglect to read that aswell?"

Erm I thought that talking about KLF was John's way of saying "calm down" Ronan.

Re live music vs DJs in clubs. One thing that strikes me about live rock/pop is that, even when the music is supposed to be "all about the live experience", it still has the alternate purpose of being a song that you can learn, sing, identify with emotionally etc. ie. all the things that rock/pop stuff does generally.

When you're talking about club-suited dance music - especially the more minimal stuff - it's harder to respond to it in such a manner that doesn't first have to work through the music's initial purpose, which is to get you to dance. For example, it's harder (though not impossible) to get excited about a dance groove that doesn't take into account a potential physical response to it. It's not that you have to dance to the groove in order to appreciate it so much as that you have to be able to hear within the music the element that would make you dance if you were in a club at the time (does this make sense?). This is how I listen to dance music: my response to its potentiality to make me dance is now so automatic and instinctive that I don't think about it, but saying "it's good" translates as "if this came on while I was dancing my response would be more heartfelt." I guess you could call this a 'projected physical response', as in my "appreciation" of the music is tied up in a fantasy of a physical response that does not necessarily occur.

I wonder what people who *don't* obsessively listen to dance music as dancers look for and identify with (if you're one of these people, enlighten me) but it makes sense to me that they would look for elements to complement groove in the same way that one might look for groove + x in rock and pop - where "x" might = personality, melody, dangerousness etc. etc. etc. This leads to album-dance, which could be imperfectly defined as dance music that clearly caters for more responses than just the physical and the projected-physical.

That makes alot more sense. But

I can't help it if I'm angrily passionate about something, particularly when I feel the misinterpretation of what I said was stubborn and later, deliberate.

Ronan - consensus seems to be that I'm being an asshole so I'm prepared to concede most of your points and attribute my inability to see them to my own stupidity. But. A live band, no matter how much they stretch themselves or put on a show or how different their sonic show is, cannot be compared to a DJ

Really?

So a DJ is so utterly sui generis that comparisons cannot illuminate, inform, or otherwise offer information about what they're doing? Clubbing is so entirely aside from other musical experiences that it's not even in the same ballpark? The things a DJ has at his disposal that you've listed: do they render all comparison fruitless? To answer my own question, I obviously don't think so, and think that there are more similarities than you're willing to admit (hierophant [band OR DJ]/congregation relationshiop, check; individual responses to music in a communal environment, check; freedom to respond physically to the music in question, check; suspension of adherence to standard rules of time (songlength/silences between songs/etc), check) between dancing in a club and doing so at a Dead or Phish or Ratdog show, and that the chief differences are cosmetic (i.e. the tropes preferred by adherents to either style for describing their experiences), but if it's honestly your position that drawing comparisons between music played by a DJ and music played by a band, well, then we're done. All best -

add "...is without even potential use" to that last "comparing" clause. Thanks

I think the comparisons you point out there are sensible, but I would have assumed they were for granted if we are discussing live performances.

The context in which I rejected the comparison was you suggesting the Phish/whoever gig. I stand by that. You say the suspension of adherence to standard rules of time, but even that is not totally unpredictable at the Grateful Dead show really is it? I mean they aren't going to play one song for 30 seconds are they?

I think the DJ has far more freedom to do whatever he wants (and he will use this) than the live band, and that's where the comparison falls down for me. I also think the similarities you pointed out are a little pedantic, given I'm hardly denying the fact that both are forms of musical performance and therefore share certain base qualities.

Having said ALL this I'd like to say I've no grudge or the like after this. If I seemed angry it's because indeed I was, and would be again probably, but as I say it's all within the argument as far as I see.

For that matter you can't really say you've understood what Mercyful Fate are all about until you've been up for three days on peanut butter crank...

John Darnielle is my hero. I can't tell if he's serious or not with this post, but I learned to love Roxy Music in almost the exact same way. Down to the reruns and lack of food. Of course, now I can't listen to Avalon without twitching.

'DJ has far more freedom to do whatever he wants (and he will use this) than the live band'

...except ANYTHING AT ALL that might alienate the audience - who have a very narrow parameter of what they want. They want something to dance to, after all. I'll NEVER believe the DJ/artist comparison until I see someone play something the club doesn't like and stick to it. Dance music's great, DJs are just furniture, party hosts, pimps and panderers, etc.

...and I'll believe that "You gotta know how to work a crowd!" thing as soon as I see a group of clubbers looking sullen and surly in a queue going "This guy better impress us." Clubbers already know they're going to have a good time, and to make sure this is 100% possibility they load up on drugs, and this is fine, but no different than people going out on New Year's (same mandatory celebratoriness), except nowadays people demand New Years Eve parties every day.

There are loads of DJs who can't mix records but are good because they can work crowds. And I've had lots of bad nights in clubs, drugs or no drugs. It's easy to tell when a DJ is not bothering his arse.

the DJ has far more freedom to do whatever he wants (and he will use this) than the live band Wow! What an fantastic reversal of conventional wisdom!

Surely the DJ's emotional palette is much more limited (to inducing dancing basically) where a live band can cover the whole range of human emotion. Have you ever seen a DJ set where people sat quietly and cried?

Eh Alexander, I refer you to the "I'm not saying either is better per se" part of what I said earlier. If you want to start that debate go and do it, just don't expect me to get involved. As it is you're just agreeing with me when I try and stress the differences between a DJ set and a live performance by a band.

Is this the new thing to assume I'm saying? I mean I wasn't promoting E so now am I attacking rock music. Jesus just cos you're not paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you

Ronan: I'm not saying that either one is better or worse either - I'm genuinely interested in the reasons why you state a DJ can be more flexible since I think a live band has usually much more freedom (compairing like with like obviously - a DJ ignoring the crowd and playing a predetermined set probably has the smae problems as a live band relying on DATs). Changing the set, the tempo the arrangement is surely easier for a live band (if they have enough songs rehearsed!)

Its not about rock music either.. well not big 'r' "Rock" music - live dance / pop / jazz / whatever music can have similar properties. Actually what I had in mind was The Dirtbombs (who sprung to mind because I noted they were playing in Dublin tonight) and they are a hot n sweaty soul review r'n'b (in the 50s sense) band. They have a limited palette to of course - the style they choose, the available instruments, the range and abilities of the players etc - But thats still a huge range

Why do you think changing the set poses a problem to a DJ? I genuinely would have thought most DJs don't even bother with a setlist. Perhaps this is idealistic of me but I would have thought the DJ, despite having some general idea of what he's going to play, will throw something in quite randomly. In fact, I'd imagine the aspect of DJing which is the most fun is the "last track" type thing where he will throw out something old or some bizarre bootleg or the like. I doubt this is always predetermined but again perhaps I'm being idealistic.

I would have thought the appeal of DJing is the notion of flexibility, and I don't think it's as dictated by the crowd as some might think. It's a give and take thing, and the best DJs will hook the crowd in, yes by giving them what they want, but there comes a point in all good DJ's sets where they could play almost anything they wanted. Whether that's cos everyone's fucked or not is up to oneself

Have you ever seen a DJ set where people sat quietly and cried? The goalmouth is wide-open and therefore the OCEAN COLOUR SCENE joke must be nodded triumphantly home...

Back in '96 in a Berlin afterhours club I saw people dancing to jungle as though it were actually good dance music, and that made me sit quietly in the corner and cry. *runs and hides*

there comes a point in all good DJ's sets where they could play almost anything they wanted

This is a fascinating assertion but surely it's got to be something of an overstatement, yes? Is there a point in any good DJ's set where he'd be able to play "Don't Break the Oath" by Mercyful Fate without, you know, pissing off the dancers?

Real question not pisstake. If things are that fast and loose then I've got to find a proper club. The ones I've been to in the past couple years have been pretty genre-bound: the 'ardcore DJ plays 'ardcore, the trance DJ plays trance...exactly zero bleedthrough. If I heard Richie Hawtin followed by King Diamond, well, that'd just be incredibly cool.

as though it were actually good dance music

*confused* It isn't?

the story on places like the paradise garage in its legendary heyday was def that part of the fun was like wtf will the dj scratch with next? kraftwerk, thin lizzy, howdy doody, anything, everything? texturally totally wide open (pre-sampling, way wider than any band), tho rhythmically less wide (the scratching kept it within the rhythmic, um , context, and it was phrases and repeated fragments, not whole records)

there's a lot of idealising going on both sides here: i never attended the paradise garage, so i don't know how often the dj tried scratching with a record that in the event by mistake cleared the dancefloor... but the er infinite freedom a rock or jazz or salsa band has is not all that often seized and worked, as far as i recall (i did see Alterations' last evah show — Toop, Beresford, Cusack and Day — who were maybe the closest there ever was to a group who made absolute freedom in ANY possible genre their ideal, which they got nowhere near, obviously, because of practical instrumental limitation)

Most DJs don't take *all* their records to every show, I would imagine.

Ned! As you are well aware, there are only two good dance songs, and they are entitled "Blue Monday" and "Confusion." To date there has been no jungle mix of either of them. So there you are.

Happy to clear that up for you.

Yawn. Both the arguments here seem to be pretty lame. Is "you can't appreciate it without the booming sound-system and hyperkinetic energy of a club" an apology of sorts for someone else not liking the dance mix you like or is it an unassailable argument for its value which only those hearing in that context can possibly appreciate ("But Finnegan's Wake is ass". . . "Oh no, you just aren't able to appreciate it without a firm grounding in linguistics and Irish history and firm whack in the head with a 2x4". . . "Uh, no it sucks".) It almost always sounds like the latter to me. I can accept that some music works better in the club setting, but cutting off any argument about it (not to mention nullifying anyone else's opinion) by turning any debate back on the listener's supposed (often mistakenly supposed) "short-comings" is reminiscent of all the boring old elitist arguments (re: Finnegan's Wake) that everyone finds so tiresome when they are listening to or reading something they don't enjoy. It's lame, not to mention presumptuous (one of the things that obv pissed John off was the assumption on Roman's part that John couldn't understand 'cause he'd never done this or that).

That said, John's argument is equally reductive (and I'm not sure if he is entirely serious about this whole dance music suX0r thing). Listening to music is an individual experience and music can certainly be functional, i.e. "I like to listen to this when I clean and it sounds great", and temporal, i.e "that song sure sounded great when I was back in high school and I still like it." Making an example out of dance music and claiming that it is all awful 'cause it's only good to dance to seems to me to pretty unfair and equally presumptive ("I think this music sounds great in a club". . . "I only liked this music when I was dancing therefore you only like it when you are dancing therefore it sucks". . . "Uh no it doesn't and who said I don't like it at home too?")

By the way a lot of jungle is great. I want to vote to hear "Circle of Tyrants" followed by "Squadron" in the same dj set. That would be really cool.

"If I heard Richie Hawtin followed by King Diamond, well, that'd just be incredibly cool."

Would it? Is eclecticism for its own sake, or for the sake of 'artistry', really terribly interesting?

Maybe this was implicit in what you were saying, but I'd restate the eclecticism = cool idea by saying that what is incredibly cool is when the DJ takes stuff from different genres and makes it sound like the same genre. A juxtaposition of difference doesn't do much for me, but recognising something within each piece of music that can't be spotted by most people until they actually hear the music spun together is much more impressive (this is a similar but different trick to what the good bootleggers do).

A good/random example of this is DJ sets by members of The Avalanches - you're likely to hear anything, but you'll dance to all of it.

PS. "Difficult" DJ sets where the DJs do their best to alienate their audience and/or prove their artistry are actually incredibly common, at least in metropolitan cities. The reason people don't quietly cry is that it's harder to emotionally identify with difficultness/jarring eclecticism in a DJ set than it is with a good band. But I have had some very emotional non-drug assisted experiences on the dancefloor when the music was just right (even to jungle, John! eg. when the Global Communications remix of Lamb's "Gorecki" came on after J Majick and Hatiras' "Spaced Invader").

As you are well aware, there are only two good dance songs, and they are entitled "Blue Monday" and "Confusion."

Seductive as this approach might be, I point out to you that any list lacking James Brown's "Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothing," Patrice Rushen's "Forget-Me-Nots," Donna Summers' "I Feel Love" and Orbital's "Chime" is regrettably incomplete. For a start.

Ned: I was just trying (failing) to be funny with the "two good dance songs" comment although I still can't imagine why anyone would be moved to dance to jungle (a genre which I doubly resent since it takes a kick-ass genre name and weds it to a music which just does nothing for me). I like a fair amount of dance music; I'd still maintain that there are valuable comparisons to be drawn between the way that the audience at a Phish show receives/responds to the music they hear and the way that the dancers in a club receive/respond to the music they hear. I don't actually mean this the way it gets taken ("Ha, ha! The music you like can be compared to Phish!) although admittedly I am not a big Phish fan. I think actually the prototype for ecstasy-of-stasis dance music is the Allman Bros' "Mountain Jam/Theme from 'First There Is a Mountain," which I happen to like rather a lot. Finally -- Tim: have you listened much to King Diamond? Eclecticism for its own sake doesn't thrill me, but continuous-groove is an equally played-out field. Once a thousand years ago I'd been dancing to Dead Or Alive/Shannon/Tintin/Pet Shop Boys when all of a sudden the DJ played "How Soon Is Now?" Jarring, shocking, jaws dropping: dead-perfect dance floor moment. Ditto when two hours later the same DJ played Nina Hagen's "Smack Jack."I renew my call for the DJ's of the world to open themselves up to disrupting the flow for the greater good of the Flow.

Oh don't fret John, I wasn't taking it seriously...indeed, I was perversely impressed by the idea if it was real!

And I've been at a variety of KUCI-related open-air dance broadcasts where jungle was spun and people got into the groove big time. It does happen, it does.

Dear John,

When attempting to be funny, please use either the patented Ned Raggett winky-face ;-) or the oft-used and as yet unpatented hehe or the much loved and the now in the public domain JK.

Thank you,

The Nuance Challenged

john's total dismissal of all jungle erases any respect i once had for his taste (in much the same way my inability to find anything of value in mercyful fate - but not all metal, ah hah - renders me suspect.) how can anyone can find nothing in the rhythmic blah blah blah...(as he teeters off into incoherent geriatric mumbling...)

if we're taking the avalanches as an example - and since i left you as a "dj mix" which it might as well be - then there are certainly moments of "etoh" or several other tracks wistful enough to induce tears in someone i should think. i'm sure many people - esp. at more "ecclesiastical" clubs like the garage or body and soul - have had similar experiences on the dancefloor.

this distinction is a non-distinction, for the most part. willful eclecticism is a non-starter for me; part of the joy of the "homogeneous" dj set is the bending, warping, folding, and yes even mutilating of tracks into one another, creating whole new fleshy mutants (and sometimes shockingly pretty turns.) every rock band (except for fugazi, ha ha) has it's repetoire, it's stock moves, it's rehearsed theatrics, just like a dj. but to say that a dj can't improvise, play with perception/conception...it's just silly.

the dj pica pica pica cd is one of the most "eclectic" (gabba bluegrass! indigenous tribesman doing the watusi [no pun intended]!) yet tight, rhythmic, and jawdropping dj sets i've ever heard. eye live on the decks at a festival produced some of the most ravishing sounds yet heard by these ears with just two turntables (no microphone, thank god, as much as i love his screaming.) but now i suspect we're moving away from "dance" and into something else...

by the way, if i spelled ecclesiastical right (either time), i deserve a cookie.

the patented Ned Raggett winky-face ;-)

I still don't get how one of the oldest emoticons ever -- since the invention of type, practically -- is now somehow mine by default. Must be because I'm the only one brave enough to use it nowadays, HA!

The only reason people respect DJs at all is that deep down they know that absolutely anyone in the world could be one, so there's gotta be some sort of catch, right?

(Whereas only 99.99999% of people in the world could be in live bands. Margins are everything!)

Where do laptop performers fit into this mess

Or maybe I'll start a thread...

laptop performers disrupt the flow by the coded reflections off light off the top of their wee baldy heads

I think if I came across as saying "you can't understand this" then that's a little unfair of me.

I'm not saying "anyone who doesn't like this mix" blah blah blah just hasn't been clubbing and can't understand. That's silly. I just think the best gateway to something like techno in particular is clubbing. And it seems to me almost impossible to start from scratch, as it were, with something like techno. I say this as someone who's only started to "get" techno in the last few months and as a house fan first and foremost.

I'm just thinking of, say playing Muzikizum by X-Press 2 to a friend with no interest in music. I can imagine them saying "god that's pretty full on" or making some joke about that. In fact I'd be pretty sure they'd find it like that. And it isn't hard by dance music standards. A simple example like that even, I think, illustrates what I was saying.

Personally I can't imagine how I'd have gotten into techno without going clubbing, and I wonder how many ILmers there are who first of all LIKE TECHNO, and out of that number how many go or used to go clubbing on a regular basis? And if that's not a sign of how clubbing is the best way of understanding more dance music then what's the alternative reasoning;that techno is crap? that it's very much an acquired taste? I wonder.

I compared Jeff Mills to Tony Iommi on another thread and as usual everyone thought I was fucking about

how can anyone can find nothing in the rhythmic blah blah blah

Jess you are a genius. I am going to record me a jungle album and entitle it "The Rhythmic Blah Blah Blah."

Unless I'm mistaken, this thread is now officially unravelled, so can I just ask: what jungle do I need to hear to change my mind about that stuff? Is this DJ Pica Pica something I've gotta have? You people have now idea how bad I wanted to like a genre called "jungle." But that one beat, you know, and what seemed to me a pretty non-monolithic uniformity of texture...

...given the responses of people on this topic I figure the stuff I've heard must just have been the lame stuff. I have no idea what it was since it was all in clubs, and left me wishing for the scintillating dance rhythms of, say, the Mass in B Minor. Anyhow advice would be appreciated, as would a burned copy of DJ Pica Pica ;)

I hate emoticons

"...that ONE BEAT..."

John, are you sure you aren't thinking of tech-step?

I think he is, and post-'97 techstep at that.

John, did you ever hear jungle during the years '93-'97? If so, and you still found the term "jungle" inappropriate, then you are alien to me. If not, I guess I'll be making two copies of that tape I promised Ronan.

In the meantime, to get a good idea of just how rhythmically diverse jungle actually was, some good tunes to track down might be:

Omni Trio - Renegade Snares (Foul Play Remix)
Omni Trio - Thru The Vibe
Hyper-On Experience - Lords of the Null-Lines (Foul Play Remix)
Foul Play - Being With U
Splash - Babylon (Remix)
Bass Selective - Blow Out Jungle VIP
Dillinja - Angels Fell
DJ Crystl - Warp Drive
Roni Size & Die - Timestretch
Neil Trix - Gestures Without Motion
FBD Project - She's So
J Majick - Your Sound
DJ SS - Lighter (Remix)
Back 2 Basics - Horns For '94 (Remix)
Renegade - Terrorist
Deep Blue - Helicopter Tune
Tom & Jerry - Still Lets Me Down
Peshay - Vocal Tune
Spring Heel Jack - Oceola
Doc Scott - Drums '95
Adam F - Metropolis
Dom & Roland - Elektra
Source Direct - Stonekilla
Source Direct - Enemy Lines

to tim's list i would add:

4 hero's "journey from the light"
dead dred's "dred bass"
hype's "roll da beats"
dj zinc's "super sharp shooter" (okay the beats are fairly typical rectilinear jump-up, but that B-LINE)
marvellous cain's "the hitman" and "dub plate style" (natch)
danny break's "droppin science vol. 2"
dillinja's "muthafucka"
ganja kru's "computerized cops (pascal remix)"
leviticus' "the burial"

audiogalaxy is yr friend here.

dj pica pica pica has nothing to do with jungle (except for some amen breaks here and there), but it sounds exactly what you'd think a boredoms dj mix would sound like. but better. (john, if you want a copy, email me.)

(oh, and i was just kidding about losing faith in yr taste, btw.)

Your ardor has got me looking up stuff on Audiogalaxy. The stuff I heard included Spring Heel Jack and Adam F both of whom I found awful dull but I am busily & greedily gobbling up stuff to figure out what I missed. Tapes/CDs are of course always welcome because I am a very sick man who wants to eventually be driven from his home by mounting piles of data-storage devices.

This is pretty much the most thought-provoking thread I've read on ILM. I wonder if John liked the Rough Guidage?

(The one thing I'd maybe say that hasn't been said already is that, for me at least, hearing stuff in a club was totally necessary to understand the whole "only DJs buy records" thing you get with non-HMV dance. And maybe the fact that you're dancing to stuff you might well never be able to hear again is the really big difference between DJ sets and live gigs? I dunno, I'm new at this).