slow techno = tech house??

forge · Post by **forge** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:57 pm

I'm finding the description I keep thinking of for the shit I'm working on at the moment is "slow-techno" and I think it might be what some people call "tech-house" - I've always gravitated towards "tech-house" as a descriptive style but some people seem to have a problem with the term - can anyone tell me why???

difference · Post by **difference** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:54 pm

Techno is still techno if it's slow imo.

How do you define slow? Techno for me is not defined by bpm, but by the sounds used and the arrangement.

House is more "groovy". I would tend to define tech-house as house beats/basslines with techno noises, it's a logical progression from acid house in some ways.

But I don't think pigeon-holing is a precise science to be honest

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:55 pm

hey forge, can you post some audible examples ?

thx1138 · Post by **thx1138** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:35 pm

I hate pigeon holes. In the UK the music press is really bad for it. I know you need a point of reference to talk about the music but FFS!

I agree Techno is Techno what ever the speed bu the lines sure do blur sometimes lol.

Marcus

forge · Post by **forge** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:23 pm

AdamJay wrote:hey forge, can you post some audible examples ?

what I'm meaning really is Techno below 130bpm - so alot of the same kind of rhymic syncopations but 128 instead of 138

But yes I will upload something asap....

got this xavier gold bootleg I'm doing at the moment you might find interesting.....

Komplex · Post by **Komplex** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:53 pm

techno is vast so I'd say what you're doing is still techno as long as its not specifically something else. If it has the techno vibe and mindset I'd say it's just slower techno. Even Basic Channel tracks are still classed as techno...

mike holiday · Post by **mike holiday** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:05 am

minimal?

forge · Post by **forge** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:03 am

mike holiday wrote:minimal?

from what I've alwys understood of minimal techno it's more the 300 bars of one loop then 300 bars with a new hi-hat added ad infinitum variety.....

just kidding, but I mean the kind intended for 4 deck mixes where not alot happens so you you can chop them together yourself to make your own mix

drush · Post by **drush** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:05 pm

the terms get used interchangably, just like house v techno does. once upon a time there was little-to-no difference. what would still be techno to one person is house to another and vice versa... esp if you're from chicago ;

while it's useful to be able to broadly categorize things, don't get too wrapped up in identifying what you're doing. come up a sound that is personal to you, label it later. or let others do that.

i also don't think that bpm = genre. it's feel, esp having to do with the push or pull of the beat.

montrealbreaks · Post by **montrealbreaks** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:40 am

Though I am uninformed about both Techno and House (I'm a breaks dood if my handle isn't an obvious clue) but here is what I always thought...

Techno was music for thinking listeners
House is music for feeling listeners.

I seem to hear more syncopation in techy house than in straight techno. Of course with producers trying to split hairs and ride the boundaries between genres, this is totally speculative bullshit on my part.

rajcoont · Post by **rajcoont** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:10 am

128 instead of 138

!
Well i consider most music i listen to techno, and i have rarely purchased records averaging over 126 in many years....i just bought a jichael mackson ep on phictiv that is 116 bpm on one side and i think 112 on the flip and it's definitelty technoooooo baby......thank theo parrish (and our aging bodies and minds as a scene)for the drop in bpms.

slow is the new fast

supster · Post by **supster** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:30 am

there's a lot of disagreement about what exactly "tech-house" is ... its such a cool 21st century sounding tag that people like to tack it on all sorts of things

genres are defined by bpm, and types of common elements and idioms.

i think the term was originally applied to house with techno elements: ie: more electronic sounding bleeps and quirky audio samples applied to a 128 - 130bpm house track. tended toward more repetition.

i consider tech-house what lee burridge and craig richards played alot over the past few years. but other people tag any progressive house thats not overly dubby, or doesnt push the beat in the prototypical "gallop" rhythm of progressive

ulimately drush is right ... just purely write what you're feeling at the moment and dont be too concerned with genre.

im working on a 130 bpm track with lots of techno elements (ride, congas, quirky digital samples) with nordlead trance-like arpeggios and a retarded breakdown.

dunno exactly what people are going to call it, and dont really care all that much

.

vince watson · Post by **vince watson** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:35 pm

forge wrote:I'm finding the description I keep thinking of for the shit I'm working on at the moment is "slow-techno" and I think it might be what some people call "tech-house" - I've always gravitated towards "tech-house" as a descriptive style but some people seem to have a problem with the term - can anyone tell me why???

because its F***ing stupid. only the simple minded need to genre tag every bloody track they here....whilst it may be easier in a record store(although even this is debatable thesedays), it prevents poeple hearing music they would otherwise have stumbled upon...which in turn makes everything static and 'non-techno'.

just call it music...and groove to it...

people used to ask me in interviews what i thought of the 'tech-house scene' during my Alola/Ibadan records era and the answer i gave was the same as i have here....

if it aint innovative or bringing something new to the fold, its hardly techno is it. and there's not too many innovators on the scene thesedays....

sorry for the rant, but after getting bombarded with these questions over the years you kinda get a bit fed up with the split position of all these genres.

its really not helping our scene...

DJRetard · Post by **DJRetard** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:43 pm

Sort of correct. Techno according to the Detroit pioneers was a form of music that moved the mind and the body.This is something I agree with. Loop techno on the other hand is mostly crap and I think thats what many seem to think techno is.

Strings Of Life is a techno tune. Anything on R+s was Techno, but one thing they all had in common is those releases have SOUL with a capital S. Thats another thing the detroit pioneers were keen to point out. Getting soul from a machine.

For the past few years Techno has been runined by german and swedish producers constantly churning out souless loop techno. Their still at it as well and so no signs of stopping despite the empty dancefloors Cant they see this?.

I say get back to the real techno. Music with emotion, soul, and makes you dance.

Tec House is probably what Carl Cox plays if thats of any help to you.

drush · Post by **drush** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:46 pm

"kraftwerk and george clinton stuck in an elevator, with only a sequencer to keep them company."

slow techno = tech house??

slow techno = tech house??

Re: slow techno = tech house??