interesting questions: does techno have to move forward to still be
techno?
imo once a genre of music is established then it just goes through
phases of recycling and incrementally improving/evolving.
look at rock for example, a lot of the new bands now (say white stripes
etc) are just tweaking stuff like the stooges. is that bad tho?
and experimental for experimental's sake just missed the point of
_dance_ music to me. it still has to have a groove or funk to it.
robin...
On 17 Aug 2004, at 08:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK.
I'd like to talk about something Greg Earle said yesterday, and also
something Martin Dust posted about.
Greg said something along the lines of "Nothing sounds new to my ears
anymore". (this could be a mis-quote btw)
This is something I think about alot. If you asked me, I'd probably
tell
you that techno to me was something that sounded electronic, fresh and
different, and had it's own little style. These days, I agree with
Greg -
it's almost impossible to find something that sounds totally new that
is
considered techno.
so question 1:
Do you think striving to sound completely new to someones ears is a
good
thing, do you think we try to hard for this?
I think there's alot of stuff around that sounds completely different,
electronic and like nothing else I ever heard. Take for example some
of the
electronic music around. Some of it sounds crazy and new, does this
make it
techno? It's made by kids banging on pots and pans with a laptop, the
kind
of kids who don't get out too often by the sounds of it - I think it's
rubbish, and isn't even music to my ears. Or, as Martin Dust posted
yesterday, how about Dizzee Rascal? He sounds fresh and different, but
then
I wouldn't consider him that techno either, as you can hear the
influences
too heavy in his music.
so q. 2; does techno really need to be absoloutely new and fresh
sounding?
even to the detriment of the overall sound of the end product?
I also, whilst on my post round this morning, thought that if you think
about it, techno originally had a big social element to it too no?
(ruling out the weirdos sitting in their bedrooms writing maths
programs to
write their music with ffs)
i.e. when the 'belleville 3' had their sound system (deep space?) it
was
all about taking it out to parties right? playing on the radio too. You
couldn't play that different sounding electronic music of today out at
parties really could you? I reckon that rules it out from being techno.
Even what's credited as being one of, or the first techno record,
"Sharevari" was even named after a party, to be played at the party.
I need to redefine my little laws of techno I think. I swear my
definition
of techno has consistently changed over the last 14 years, usually
every
other month or something. so come on, what is it, techno?
