In a message dated 16/08/00 8:11:08 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Music can evolve through a process of evolution but it may not > necessarily be an > improvement over the past even though music changes because of trends and > technology. > That was the basic premises of my argument.
So you agree with me then? As I said, >>'Music evolution is the gradual > movement from one state to another - not neccesarily better, but not > neccesarily backward either. > I see progress in terms of the improvement on old ideas or methods. > Technology plays an important factor in electronic music and how it has > evolved > and progressed over the past Century. > The same applies to the evolution of the human race, we are making the > transition between man and machine slowly loosing are primitive animalistic > traits and evolving into a more hybrid humanoid that will be superior to > homosapien. > It is for the best interest of mankind. > Relatively speaking this forms the basis for the discussion, but it is just one of many standards as to which to evaluate music. Intrinsically we know that a measure of improvement is based on the perception of the listener. It is not a rule set down by aesthetic merits. The dadaists and surrealists broke many conventions of old artistic ideas/ methods and set new precedents in artistic creativity. They were some of the most progressive artists around. > I think this is the main dilemma for a lot of people. > Some people see the various Detroit electronic genres a still being part > of the > Detroit TECHNO movement. > I don't see it that way, I see a gradual decline in Detroit techno and > rise of > other electronic genre that no longer represent the Detroit techno sound. > The Detroit Techno Sound is not one which has boundaries - otherwise it wouldn't be Detroit Techno. It also isn't one which is set by any one group of artists, labels and time period either. Its a constantly evolving entity and as long as the current artists are expanding the boundaries of sound design with the advent of new ideas and equipment - there would be a gradual improvement of a very multi-faceted Detroit Techno sound. The output may not be as much as previous years but QUANTITY has never been a measure for QUALITY. > You have to remember that DEMF is an abbreviation for Detroit > *Electronic* Music > Festival. > I think its great that certain Detroit artist are enjoying their 15 > minutes of > fame. > Its very swell too, and I'm sure more would in future years to come. And they called it the 'D'ETROIT Electronic Music Festival celebrating the new era for Detroit Techno. If there was a decline in the 'Detroit' Techno sound as you claim, and other electronic genres arising out of Detroit do not represent this sound - then why did the organisers put the 'D' in the EMF? > > who cares? > Detroit techno sounded better in the late 80's early to mid 90's. A very broad generalisation, but you're entitled to your opinion. Once again 'better' is just a relative term. Detroit Techno just sounds much different now to earlier periods. > I'm sure the future of the Detroit belongs to many talented musicians and > artist. > The future of Detroit techno is uncertain. > I certainly would like to have a lot more faith than that! A_Zed
