Genres of electronic music...

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:58 pm

I'm very curious to see how people here feel about this. (and i also like a good bit of controversy)

I personally feel that the endless proliferation of sub-genres is a big problem with our community and lends a sense of illegitimacy to our movement as a whole.

In my opinion, an example of this is the bastardization of the term "ambient" in the 90's to include musicians using beats, i.e. the orb, future sound of london etc... To me, the term ambient means only music that has no distinct beats, maybe i'm naive. I also find it ridiculous that there are so many f'ing terms for different styles of house or trance. Why?

I'm not sure i wrote the poll in the most clear way, but best i could come up with.

-lm

Komplex · Post by **Komplex** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:04 pm

I totally agree. Its good for describing BUT NOT categorising if you know what I mean. All the marketing hype and buzzwords don't help either. Neither do guys who think they are creating a new style of music and want to be the first to name it, or dj's who try to give what they play a different name to stand out from the other dj's even tho they still play much of the same music as other dj's in their field.

But what can ya do? There's so much variety. Whats the solution?

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:42 pm

Like Komplex says they're for DESCRIBING

I think if the Genre's are taken as just that, there's no need to be irritated by any deviation within the genre - most people into the various sub-genres of house will say they're into House, then go on further if they need to - Orb etc got lumped into 'Ambient' because they were kind of ambient, but with beats - and maybe no-one thought of anything better at the time to catch on or it was 'specialised' enough that the people who were into it were happy that ambient was close enough to get them in the right direction, who knows, but ambient is a bit closer than psychedelic (which is probably the best alternative) because that's usually used in the direction of Goa-esque Trance

- but at the end of the day it's all just about the person reading the magazine on the train or looking at the shelves in the shop and trying to figure out which they'd be interested in and narrow things down enough to actually buy some records and not spend years of your life trying to find them.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:56 pm

do genres help or not? , well i think it depends where you are in the world and who you are talking to.

in my own city if i told a random person on the street that i make Techno music. They think Prodigy or Crystal Method. So in that instance the term techno does nothing to describe my music, only that it isn't rap or country or rock. Now if i tell someone in the Techno "Circle" in my own city that i make Techno, they well ask "what kind", and even then i truley can't describe to them what it sounds like - they just have to hear for themselves. Americans love genre's and sub-genre's. I could say "hard" techno, but all my music isn't hard, only some of it is. I could say tech-house, but the same rule holds there as well.

Now lets say i go to Belgium. even in smaller towns like Hasselt, if i say i make Techno - they know what i mean. They associate the term techno with what they hear at the "Zoo" club in Hasselt. That is the Hasselt layman's source for the definition of Techno. and generally that broad range of underground music fits into what i do.

I guess the problem with genres is Americans associate a genre with what Corporate Media tells them the definitions of that genre are. Rather than associating the genre with their own personal experiences. So if they have no personal experience with non mass-marketed ready-for-consumption Techno music, then all they know is what they hear on the Matrix soundtrack or an Xbox video game.

spiderprod · Post by **spiderprod** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:29 am

what are you on?

forge · Post by **forge** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:37 am

spiderprod wrote:what are you on?

mostly cannabis, but whatevers going really

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:27 am

here's the thing, part of the issue is that most people can't separate what a DJ does from what a producer does.

Now, I'm not here to shit on DJs. I like what DJs do. It's just frustrating as a producer. Here's a typical conversation i've had 1000 times:

Me: Hey I'm playing down at subtonic on friday, you should come check it out.

New acquaintance: Oh word? What kind of stuff do you spin?

M: No, no, I write and perform my own original material. It covers alot of territory but it references stuff like electro and hip hop...

NA: Ohhhh, cool, so you do "funky breaks"

M: uhhmmm, not really, it's a little more artsy..

NA: Ohhh, right, IDM.

M: yeah, whatever, sure, i make IDM.

i dunno, maybe its just me, but i'm annoyed at how closed people's minds are to this shit.

and y'know, if it isn't "IDM" it's "experimental downtempo" What the fuck? Like i stick my fingers in my ears when i make shit and don't know how it's gonna come out? And the shit that i do at 140 BPMs plus is "downtempo." Horseshit.

anyone else feel me?

-lm

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:34 am

i feel ya bro.
american culture is the culprit.

epilacs · Post by **epilacs** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:59 am

DONT HATE ON MY TECHY_MICRO_DUBBY_FUNKY_CLICK_HOUSE_BREAKS

milfbait · Post by **milfbait** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:31 am

There's way too many subgenres for sure.

subbasshead · Post by **subbasshead** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 6:02 am

i always thought the act of putting music into genres
was the job of journalists, not musicians?
they categorise & put the music in pigeon holes so they can compare
it with existing music that they feel also fits those categorys...

i appreciate it has to be done to help with targeting it
to an audience most likely to want to check it out,
but all that sub-sub-genre stuff seems most odd to me
when it comes from a musicians mouth
maybe its a reflection of people trying to formularise their art,
when really, as with life, its an ever changing process?

i can only speak for me
but i make music

and its influenced by everything i have ever heard
including music i love
and music i cant stand
and all sound

epilacs · Post by **epilacs** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 6:20 am

i think that a sad effect of the genre-ization of electronics
is that people new (and familiar i guess) to creating with these tools
aspire to certain genres.
an example are all the posts around here that are written to the tune of
is this software good for trance how do i make electro how do i
make hip hop, etc...

the true innovators simply create sound, and i agree, the critics then
create new exciting marketing terms....
it is so sick
and somewhat off-topic... it just kills me when i read or hear
about the music makers talking about how to create intros, breakdowns, etc
that will comfortably fit into a dj's set.
great djs can play great tracks and make it work....
major pet peeve is confusing making music with dj culture
it is not the same thing...

the ebb and flow mirrors whatever genres are getting the most press
or whatever label is hot at the moment.
sad sad sad

special ed · Post by **special ed** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:34 am

how 'bout this for genres, "sucks" and "brilliant". seriously though, i really feel what you are all saying. i cant keep up with all the names that are given, its like every new song is its own sub-genre. i think the culprit is the indie-labels. my favorite "electronic" (i hate that fucking term) group is probably the chemical brothers, you can listen to their stuff and its like every subgenre. me personally, sometimes i like to make a track thats 4 on the floor and 130 bpm, other times an abstract beat at 77 bpms, and then i like guitar oriented music. when people ask me what kind of music i do, i cant even answer the question. its either music or sound or a hybrid of the two i guess. all the different subgenres put too much division within the electronic music scene as well.

Moonburnt · Post by **Moonburnt** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:51 am

What a relief to see that so many people think that genres are nonsense. Which leads me to the question, if musicians aren't doing the pigeon-holing, then who the hell IS perpetrating all this sub-sub-sub-genre shite - and why is electronic music in particular so full of sub-genres, when rock is rock?

If I get asked what my style is, I tend to say something along the lines of "a mixture of real and electronic stuff". Even really broad terms like dance or electronica are utterly misleading when all i really wanna say is that i write music (y'know, chords, notes, beats, all that stuff...) that incorporates sounds from anything, and may or may not be dance-oriented, and may contain anything from electronic beeps n boops to crusty old acoustic guitars!

special ed · Post by **special ed** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:24 pm

f musicians aren't doing the pigeon-holing, then who the hell IS perpetrating all this sub-sub-sub-genre shite

indie-labels, music journalists, club promoters. they are the ones who basically do this. an indie might say that they deal in tech house, and techno, but dont do deep house or trance or big beat. the journalists just want to use all these different sub-genres so they appear like they are on top of things on the cutting edge. club promoters do it on a basis of which crowd they think is going to bring in the money. its all fucking stupid i think. its basically another marketing ploy.

Genres of electronic music...

I think that the many genres of electronic music are...

Genres of electronic music...